Read the content of a specific file at a past version of an app. Use list_versions to get a commit hash and get_version_files to browse available files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | App ID (UUID) or subdomain | |
| hash | Yes | Commit hash (full or abbreviated, from bonto_list_versions) | |
| path | Yes | File path within the commit (e.g. "index.js", "src/app.ts") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It clearly conveys a read-only operation ('Read the content'), which is safe and non-mutating. However, it does not disclose details about return format, error behavior, or auth requirements, which would be valuable. The description is minimally adequate but not rich.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a concise usage hint. Every word earns its place; 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?
For a simple read operation with complete parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage prerequisites. It names the tools to obtain inputs. It doesn't explain return value structure, but that is less critical given the description says 'content'. A minor gap is lack of edge-case behavior, but the scope is simple enough that the description is nearly complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are individually documented. The description adds contextual meaning by telling users where to get the 'hash' (list_versions) and 'path' (get_version_files), linking parameters to other tools. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, providing provenance for parameter values.
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 ('Read the content'), resource ('a specific file'), and temporal scope ('at a past version of an app'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like read_file (current version) and get_version_files (browse files). The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.
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 explicitly names prerequisite tools: 'Use list_versions to get a commit hash and get_version_files to browse available files.' This tells the user exactly how to obtain the required parameters and implies when this tool is appropriate (when targeting a past version), providing clear usage guidance and alternatives.
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.
