apply_app_versionStart deploying an existing app at a specific version. Use the 'version' value from get_app_versions, then poll get_app_status until deployment reaches a terminal status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | Target app id | |
| version | Yes | Version id to apply |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds that this starts an async deployment process requiring status polling, and that the version must come from get_app_versions. This goes beyond the structured data without contradicting it.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that first state the purpose and then give the operational workflow. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the action, the expected source of the version, and how to monitor completion. It is not overly detailed but sufficient for the tool's complexity. Could mention error scenarios, but that is beyond requirements.
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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds semantic value by specifying that 'version' should be taken from get_app_versions, and that app_id refers to an existing app, which is not fully captured in the schema.
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 clearly states the action: 'Start deploying an existing app at a specific version.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like deploy_app by emphasizing 'former app version' and referencing get_app_versions and get_app_status for the full rollback workflow.
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 explicit steps: obtain the version from get_app_versions, then poll get_app_status until a terminal status. This gives clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives such as deploy_app for fresh deployments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the 5 secrets-related tools (create_secret_entry, delete_app_secrets, get_secret_entry_status, list_app_secrets, set_app_secrets) are numerous and could cause confusion. Similarly, deploy_app and apply_app_version both involve deployment but with different contexts. Overall, descriptions help differentiate, but some overlap remains.
The majority of tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., deploy_app, get_apps). However, the src_ prefix tools (src_glob, src_grep, src_read) deviate by using a noun prefix instead of a verb, creating a slight inconsistency. Otherwise, naming is clear and predictable.
With 21 tools, the server covers deployment, domain management, secrets, source inspection, and asset upload without being overly large. The count is well-scoped for a deployment platform, each tool serving a necessary role.
Core workflows (deploy, status, secrets, source inspection) are well-covered. However, there are minor gaps: no tool to list available templates or manage app metadata beyond deployment. The surface is mostly complete but could benefit from a few additional administrative tools.