delete_app_secretsDelete one or more backend secret names from an existing app. Missing names are ignored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | Target app id | |
| secret_names | Yes | Secret names to delete from the app. Missing names are ignored. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds a specific behavioral trait: 'Missing names are ignored,' which clarifies the idempotent behavior beyond the annotation. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful context about handling non-existent secrets.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word is necessary; it includes the important nuance about missing names being ignored without any filler.
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 delete operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and edge case (missing names). It does not specify return values, but given the destructive and idempotent nature disclosed via annotations, this is sufficient. Missing only a brief note on expected output, but overall complete for its complexity.
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?
The schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already contains; it mirrors the schema's 'one or more' and 'backend secret names' phrasing without enriching it.
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 (delete) and the specific resource (backend secret names) with scope (from an existing app). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_app (deletes the entire app) and set_app_secrets (creates/updates secrets).
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 implies usage by naming the operation and target but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'use set_app_secrets to add or update, this only deletes') or any preconditions beyond the app existing. No when-not guidance is provided.
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.