create_entity_schemaCreate an entity schema file in entities/.json. Creates a Saved Version before writing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| entity | Yes | Entity name | |
| schema | Yes | JSON schema object | |
| indexes | No | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| relationships | No |
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 indicate write behavior (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds a notable detail that a Saved Version is created before writing, which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like handling of existing files (overwrite parameter), whether directories are created, or potential failure modes. While it adds some context, it does not fully compensate for the lack of annotation coverage on side effects.
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 two concise sentences with no redundant words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the saved-version behavior is stated succinctly. Every word adds value.
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?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, this description is far too brief. It lacks details about the schema structure, optional parameters, behavior when overwriting, and expected return value. An agent would need to consult the schema extensively and might still be uncertain about semantics for the optional fields.
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 low (43%), so the description should clarify parameters. It only infers that 'entity' becomes part of the file path, and mentions nothing about 'schema', 'indexes', 'metadata', 'overwrite', or 'relationships'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the undocumented parameters.
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 ('Create an entity schema file') and the resource ('in entities/<Entity>.json'). It uses a specific verb and names the output location, distinguishing it from siblings like update_entity_schema. The purpose is immediately obvious.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_entity_schema or create_entity_records. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are some overlapping pairs like read_app_file/read_app_files and create_entity_records vs seed_entity, which could cause misselection. Singular/plural variants and compatibility tools introduce minor ambiguity, but the majority are well-separated.
Tool names predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_app, get_entities, delete_secret). There are some variations like 'agency_create_client' and 'seed_entity' that deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
With 82 tools, the server is far above the typical range and feels overwhelming. Even for a full platform API, the count is extreme and likely increases selection complexity. A more curated set would improve navigability without sacrificing capability.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering app lifecycle, file operations, entity CRUD, versioning, A/B testing, secrets, integrations, domains, agents, scheduling, policies, and member management. No obvious missing operations for the platform's scope; it even includes validation and workflow guidance tools.