List the commit history (version snapshots) for an app. Returns commits in reverse chronological order with their hash, date, and message. Use the hash with other version tools to inspect or restore past states.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | App ID (UUID) or subdomain | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of versions to return (default: 50, max: 500) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (hash, date, message) and the ordering (reverse chronological), which is behavioral information beyond the schema. It doesn't explicitly state side effects, but 'List' suggests a read-only operation.
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: the first states the primary purpose, the second adds return format and downstream usage. No redundant words.
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?
With no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (commits with hash, date, message, reverse chronological order). It doesn't cover error cases or pagination, but for a simple list tool with documented parameters, it is largely 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?
The input schema already documents both 'app' and 'limit' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referring to 'for an app', so it does not elevate the 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 opens with a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('commit history (version snapshots) for an app'), and clarifies the output fields and ordering, distinguishing it from sibling tools like restore_version or get_version_file_content.
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?
It explains that hashes returned are used with other version tools to inspect or restore past states, implying this tool is for viewing history rather than acting on it. It doesn't name specific sibling tools as alternatives, but the guidance is clear.
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.
