Install one or more npm packages in an app. Updates package.json and runs npm install inside the container. Use get_install_status to poll for completion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | App ID (UUID) or subdomain | |
| packages | Yes | Array of packages to install |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects: 'Updates package.json and runs npm install inside the container.' It also implies async behavior by directing to get_install_status for polling. This goes beyond a simple 'installs packages' statement and gives meaningful context about the operation's nature.
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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence states the core action and resource; the second provides essential follow-up guidance. No filler or 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 mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is modified (package.json, container), the asynchronous nature, and the specific polling tool. It doesn't describe potential error cases or return values, but the information provided is sufficient to invoke and monitor the operation correctly.
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 describes both parameters comprehensively (app as 'App ID (UUID) or subdomain' and packages as an array with name/version/dev). The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action: 'Install one or more npm packages in an app.' It uses a specific verb (Install) and identifies the resource (npm packages in an app), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_package, list_packages, and search_packages.
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 tells the agent to 'Use get_install_status to poll for completion,' which provides clear lifecycle guidance after invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, though the verb itself implies when it is appropriate.
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.
