get_app_linksReturn editor, preview, published path, subdomain, and custom-domain links plus whether each works for anonymous visitors, app users, or Studio users based on publish and auth settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description is not burdened with those. It adds the behavioral nuance that results depend on publish and auth settings, which is useful context beyond the schema, but it does not mention error conditions or output structure. This is moderate added value.
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 sentence that front-loads the primary outcome ('Return editor, preview, published path...') but packs a lot of detail. It is efficient and not padded, maintaining good structure for quick scanning.
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?
With only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains what links are returned and the access dimension. It could specify the response structure more explicitly, but for a simple read-only fetch it is sufficiently complete.
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 already documents app_id with a clear description ('The app ID'), and coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gap.
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 it returns multiple types of app links (editor, preview, published path, subdomain, custom-domain) plus access info, which is specific and informative. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_preview_url, but the scope is distinct enough to be understood.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_preview_url or get_app_detail. It simply describes what it returns without clarifying use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.
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.