get_custom_domain_instructionsUse this when you need setup guidance or to check the current custom domain status for an app. Returns configured hostnames, DNS instructions, stage proxy targets, fallback IPv4 addresses, and next steps.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing safety. The description goes beyond annotations by listing concrete return fields (hostnames, DNS instructions, stage proxy targets, fallback IPv4 addresses, next steps), which is valuable given no output schema. It doesn't describe behavior for unconfigured domains, but the listed next steps imply that case.
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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence gives usage context, the second summarizes return values. Every word earns its place.
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 description covers purpose, usage, and return content, which is sufficient for a simple one-parameter read-only tool. It lacks examples or edge-case handling, but the explicit return list and the presence of a sibling configuration tool provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 sole parameter app_id is fully described in the schema as 'Target app id' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, and none are needed given the schema's clarity. This meets the baseline for 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?
Description uses a specific verb phrase ('get setup guidance or check current status') and clearly identifies the resource (custom domain for an app). It distinguishes from sibling configure_custom_domain by focusing on retrieval/status rather than modification.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you need setup guidance or to check the current custom domain status'). It doesn't name alternative tools or provide explicit exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (configure_custom_domain) makes the boundary clear enough.
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.