set_entity_policyCreate or update server-side read/write role policy for an app entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| read | Yes | Roles allowed to read | |
| write | Yes | Roles allowed to write | |
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| entity | Yes | Entity name, e.g. Booking |
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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'Create or update' matches but adds no additional behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't describe whether existing policies are overwritten, merged, or how side effects manifest beyond the annotation hints.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action, target, and scope succinctly, earning full marks for conciseness.
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 mutation tool with 4 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials. It lacks a note on overwrite/merge behavior or permission requirements, but given the annotations and schema, these are minor omissions.
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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format or semantics of role arrays), so it meets the baseline for full 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 states a specific action ('Create or update') on a specific resource ('server-side read/write role policy') scoped to an 'app entity'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_route_policy, and the verb+resource structure is unambiguous.
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 implies usage for entity-level policies via the phrase 'for an app entity', but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as set_route_policy. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use exclusions, leaving some inference required from the tool name itself.
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.