get_appFetch a Tanvo app's required photos, preset looks with example outputs and prompts, runtime model, and browser link by app slug.
One Tanvo app: the photos it needs, its preset looks (each with an example output and the prompt behind it), the model it runs on and the link that opens it in the browser.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | App slug from find_apps |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the actual payload contents (preset looks with example outputs and underlying prompts, model, browser link), which is meaningful context beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about behavior for an invalid slug.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with 'One Tanvo app', with the returned fields listed compactly. It is appropriately sized for a read tool, though the parenthetical about example output and prompt is slightly dense.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly, covering all major response components. Only the failure mode for an unknown slug is unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'app' parameter is documented as 'App slug from find_apps', so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating that it concerns one app; 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?
The description names the resource ('One Tanvo app') and enumerates exactly what it returns: photos, preset looks with example output and prompt, model, and browser link. An agent can distinguish it from find_apps (search) and get_generation (single generation), though the verb is implicit rather than stated.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use sentence or named alternative, but the content listing implies a detail-fetch operation for an app the agent already knows about. The workflow link (slug comes from find_apps) lives in the schema parameter description, not the tool description, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.