get_app_versionsList deployable versions for an existing app. Requires app_id. Returns newest-first {name, version, timestamp} items. Use 'version' with apply_app_version, treat 'name' as human-facing metadata, and convert timestamps to the user's local time when presenting them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | Target app id |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying newest-first ordering, the item structure with name/version/timestamp, and display guidance for timestamps, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second specifies input and output format, and the third provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains concise without extraneous detail.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers return format, ordering, and interpretation of fields. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool and correctly present results to a user, fulfilling the requirements without excess.
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 fully documents the single parameter app_id with a description. The description only repeats that app_id is required and adds the phrase 'existing app,' which implies validation but offers little additional semantic beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 tool lists deployable versions for an existing app, using the specific verb 'List' and resource 'deployable versions'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_apps or get_app_status, and the explicit mention of app_id and its use with apply_app_version further clarifies its role.
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 clear usage context by noting that the 'version' field should be used with apply_app_version, and that timestamps should be converted to the user's local time. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the guidance is practical and directly ties the tool to a downstream use case.
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.