get_applicationRetrieve a Vobiz application's configuration by app ID to inspect its settings; read-only access helps verify the current setup before making changes.
Return one Vobiz application's configuration. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and 'Read-only' merely restates that. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description should add value such as what happens on an unknown app_id or what 'configuration' includes, but it adds nothing beyond the annotation.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.
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 read tool with no output schema this is minimally adequate, but 'configuration' is vague about what is returned and the description says nothing about error behavior for an invalid or missing app_id.
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 0% and there is a single required app_id parameter. The description says nothing about app_id — its meaning, source, or that it must be a 5-25 digit numeric ID as implied by the pattern — so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 (Return) and resource (one Vobiz application's configuration), and the word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_applications. It stops short of naming that sibling or spelling out the single-vs-list distinction 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_applications or the id source. The only hint is the word 'one', which is purpose framing rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.