Create a new Bonto app. It starts running immediately and is accessible at {subdomain}.bonto.run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Display name for the app | |
| subdomain | Yes | Unique subdomain (3-30 chars, lowercase alphanumeric + hyphens, cannot start/end with hyphen) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior beyond the tool's name: the app starts immediately and is accessible at {subdomain}.bonto.run. However, it does not mention prerequisites like authentication, error cases, or potential side effects (e.g., resource usage), leaving some transparency gaps.
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 sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action ('Create a new Bonto app') and immediately gives two key behavioral facts (starts running, accessible at URL). Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow: creation, immediate execution, and the resulting access URL. It lacks mention of login requirements or failure modes, but given the tool's simplicity and schema coverage, this is a minor gap.
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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (name and subdomain), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds a small semantic boost by embedding the subdomain in the URL template, reinforcing its purpose, but does not go beyond that baseline.
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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Bonto app.' It also adds a distinctive detail by mentioning the app starts running immediately and is accessible at a subdomain URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_app, delete_app, and start_app.
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 clear context: it is for creating a new app. The immediate start behavior implies this is the tool to use when you want a running app from scratch. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
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, but a few pairs could be confused: get_app vs. get_app_status both report on app state, and update_app vs. set_node_version both modify runtime configuration. Descriptions are detailed enough to mitigate most ambiguity, but the overlap is notable.
Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_apps, create_app, delete_file). Minor deviations include the bare verb 'login' and the noun-first 'git_info', which break the pattern slightly but are still understandable.
At 37 tools, the set is on the heavy side, well above the typical 3-15 range. However, the server covers a broad PaaS domain (auth, app lifecycle, file management, packages, versions, git, metrics), and each tool addresses a distinct operation. It feels over-engineered in places but not gratuitously so.
The tool surface is impressively complete for a deployment platform: authentication, app CRUD, start/stop/restart, file operations (read/write/delete/rename/search/upload), package management, version snapshots and restore, git remote and push/pull, logs, metrics, and configuration. No critical dead-ends are apparent.
