Remove an npm package from an app. Updates package.json and runs npm install to clean up node_modules. Use get_install_status to poll for completion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | App ID (UUID) or subdomain | |
| name | Yes | Package name to remove (e.g. "lodash") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does disclose that it 'Updates package.json and runs npm install to clean up node_modules,' which is important behavioral context. It also implies asynchronous behavior by instructing to poll for completion. However, it doesn't mention reversibility, error cases, or permission requirements, leaving some transparency gaps.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the main action, and every sentence provides meaningful information. It is efficient with no redundant text or filler.
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?
Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the tool's behavior well: it updates package.json, runs npm install, and directs the user to poll for completion. This covers the essential operational context for a mutation tool. It could mention prerequisites or edge cases, but for a 2-parameter tool, it is fairly 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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (app and name), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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's function: 'Remove an npm package from an app.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like install_packages, list_packages, and search_packages. The additional details about updating package.json and running npm install reinforce its purpose.
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 gives clear context for when this tool is used (to remove packages) and explicitly instructs to 'Use get_install_status to poll for completion,' which is a useful operational guideline. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like install_packages, so it stops short of a fully explicit when/when-not 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.
