inspect_previewReturn server-side preview context: URLs, persisted runtime/network errors, static clickable candidates, pages, and explicit live-browser availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| route | No | Optional route to inspect | |
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| auth_as | No | Optional auth simulation: anonymous | |
| auth_as_role | No | Optional app role simulation, e.g. staff/admin/customer |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (URLs, errors, clickable candidates, pages, live-browser availability), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose the exact structure of the response or mention error handling when the app_id is invalid. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds value but is not rich in behavioral detail.
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 core purpose and then concisely lists the returned content. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff, no redundancy, and it is easily scannable.
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 tool has no output schema, so the description is the only source for what the agent receives. It lists the categories of returned data but does not explain the structure (e.g., object vs array), how parameters like route or auth_as affect the result, or what 'explicit live-browser availability' means in practice. While not incomplete enough to be unusable, an agent would benefit from more detail on parameters and response format. This is adequate but leaves gaps.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's basic meaning. The tool description does not add additional semantics for parameters like route, auth_as, or auth_as_role, so it provides no extra value beyond the schema. With full coverage, the baseline of 3 is correct.
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 returns server-side preview context and enumerates the specific elements it includes (URLs, errors, clickable candidates, pages, live-browser availability). The verb 'return' and the resource are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like get_preview_url or get_pages. Minor ambiguity around 'static clickable candidates' but overall purpose is clear.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, choose-this-over-that logic, or exclusions. Sibling tools like get_preview_url, get_pages, and get_errors overlap in scope, so the absence of usage guidance is a notable gap. The agent is left to infer when to pick this.
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.