List the files and directories at a specific version (commit) of an app. Use list_versions to get a valid commit hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | App ID (UUID) or subdomain | |
| hash | Yes | Commit hash (full or abbreviated, from bonto_list_versions) | |
| path | No | Directory path within the commit to list (default: root) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list' without explicitly stating that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention return format, pagination, hidden files, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool whose safety profile is not otherwise annotated.
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 short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated in a second sentence. 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?
There is no output schema, so the description should describe what the listing includes (e.g., names, types, recursion), but it does not. It also omits read-only status and any auth requirements. However, the schema is complete, and the tool's purpose is straightforward enough to make this minimally adequate, though with clear gaps.
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 covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds a small hint (use list_versions) that also appears in the schema's hash description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-semantics load.
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 lists files and directories at a specific commit, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also differentiates implicitly from siblings like list_files (current state) and get_version_file_content (content) by focusing on the listing at a version. The reference to list_versions for a valid hash clarifies the intended workflow.
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 instructs to use list_versions to get a valid commit hash, providing a clear prerequisite and indirectly indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_files or get_version_file_content, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools.
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.
