Restart a running app. By default uses a soft restart that preserves terminal sessions (restarts the app process, not the container). Set hard=true for a full container restart when needed (e.g. after env var changes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | App ID (UUID) or subdomain | |
| hard | No | Force a full container restart (kills terminal sessions). Default: false (soft restart). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that soft restart preserves terminal sessions and restarts only the app process, while hard restart kills terminal sessions and restarts the container. This goes beyond a mere 'restart' and clarifies side effects, though it does not mention auth requirements or potential failures.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy and clearly structures the default vs. hard-restart cases.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what happens by default, when to use hard restart, and the key side effect (terminal session preservation/kill). It lacks return value or error info, but given the action-oriented nature and lack of output schema, this is adequate.
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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by providing the example 'after env var changes' for hard=true, and by explaining the behavioral difference between soft and hard restarts beyond what the schema states. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the structured schema.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Restart a running app.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_app, stop_app, and get_app_status. It also adds meaningful nuance by explaining soft vs. hard restart modes.
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 provides explicit usage guidance for the hard parameter ('Set hard=true for a full container restart when needed (e.g. after env var changes)') and explains the default soft restart behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., when to use start_app vs. restart_app) or when not to use the tool.
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.
