Retrieve detailed information for a specific app by ID, with optional related data such as versions, builds, or prices.
Get detailed information about a specific app
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | The ID of the app to get information for | |
| include | No | Optional relationships to include in the response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed information,' which implies a read operation but does not state side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the appId is invalid. The description is too vague to ensure safe usage.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient for the given parameter count.
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?
The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain the return structure, error handling, or any limitations. Given the simplicity of the operation, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details that would help an agent understand what 'detailed information' entails.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 name and description clearly state the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific app. It uses a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes from siblings like list_apps or get_bundle_id_info.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools like list_apps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.