DESTRUCTIVE: Delete a file or directory in an app. Directories are deleted recursively. Cannot delete package.json or node_modules. You MUST confirm with the user before deleting directories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | App ID (UUID) or subdomain | |
| path | Yes | File or directory path to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE', discloses recursive deletion, lists protected paths, and mandates user confirmation for directory deletion. This is excellent behavioral disclosure beyond basics.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning. Every word adds value: action, scope, recursion, restrictions, and confirmation requirement. No redundant information.
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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is deleted, how (recursively), restrictions, and required confirmation. Context signals (2 params, no enums, simple schema) imply low complexity, and the description fully addresses the tool's behavior.
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 covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond the constraints (cannot delete certain paths), which apply to the 'path' parameter but are not detailed per-parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents each parameter.
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?
Clearly states the action 'Delete a file or directory in an app' with specific scope. Distinguishes from siblings like delete_app, remove_package, and rename_file by specifying file/directory deletion within an 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?
Provides clear context for when to use (deleting files/directories in an app) but does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use. The constraints (cannot delete package.json/node_modules, must confirm directories) give practical usage guidance.
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.
