validate_appRun deterministic app checks: syntax, imports, routes/pages, entity schemas, missing entities, and recorded runtime errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| include_runtime_errors | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying 'deterministic' checks and listing the exact categories examined (e.g., recorded runtime errors), which goes beyond what annotations alone communicate. However, it does not fully describe potential side effects (though none expected) or details about return format, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 is direct and information-dense, front-loading the core action ('Run deterministic app checks') and then enumerating the specific checks. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.
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 is relatively simple with only two parameters, and the description covers the main functionality. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a pass/fail status, a detailed report) or how include_runtime_errors affects the output. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context about the result format and parameter behavior, so a 3 is warranted.
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 50%: app_id has a description, but include_runtime_errors does not. The description mentions 'recorded runtime errors' as part of the checks, which hints at the parameter's role but does not explicitly map it to include_runtime_errors. Since coverage is not high, the description partially compensates but not completely, leaving the boolean parameter's meaning somewhat ambiguous. Baseline 3 fits.
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 verb ('Run deterministic app checks') and enumerates the exact resources/types of checks: syntax, imports, routes/pages, entity schemas, missing entities, and recorded runtime errors. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_errors (which retrieves errors) or validate_change_set (which validates a change set).
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 validating an app, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where get_errors or validate_entity_relationships might be more appropriate, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The clear purpose gives some context, but there is no explicit guidance on alternative selection.
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.