get_appRetrieves an app's details—bundle ID, Apple ID, SKU, primary locale—and its current App Store version and state per platform.
Read-only. Shows one app's details (bundle ID, Apple ID, SKU, primary locale) and its latest App Store version and state per platform.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | The app: its name (e.g. "Acme"), bundle ID (com.example.app), or numeric Apple ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the leading 'Read-only' largely restates structured data. The description does add useful content beyond annotations by naming what the payload contains (app metadata plus latest version and state per platform), but says nothing about lookup failure behavior or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, and the returned-field list is compact. The 'Read-only.' lead-in is mildly redundant with the annotations but is short enough not to be wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, non-mutating lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what identifying input forms exist and what the response covers. Only missing piece is explicit routing versus list_apps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'app' parameter is documented with all three accepted identifier forms (name, bundle ID, numeric Apple ID), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no identifier-format guidance beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('Shows one app's details') and enumerates the fields returned (bundle ID, Apple ID, SKU, primary locale) plus latest version/state per platform. The singular 'one app' implicitly distinguishes it from list_apps, but no sibling is named explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: 'one app' signals a single-record lookup versus list_apps or list_app_store_versions. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool or when to reach for a sibling instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.