Get a direct upload URL for uploading a binary or text file to an app. Returns a one-time URL valid for 5 minutes — use the Bash tool to POST the file with curl (no base64, raw binary). Works for images, fonts, archives, or any file type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | App ID (UUID) or subdomain | |
| path | Yes | Destination file path in the app (e.g. "public/logo.png", "assets/font.woff2") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: the URL is one-time, valid for 5 minutes, and uploads must be raw binary rather than base64. It also notes compatibility with any file type. Missing details like authentication requirements or size limits, but the disclosed constraints are highly valuable for safe execution.
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 main action, and every sentence adds necessary information (purpose, validation, workflow, compatibility). There is no wasted wording or repetition.
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 is largely complete. It covers the core workflow (get URL, POST via curl), key constraints (5-minute expiry, raw binary), and file-type flexibility. It could mention prerequisites like app existence or size limits, but the current level is adequate for an AI agent to proceed.
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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., app ID/subdomain and destination path examples).
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 explicitly states the tool 'Get a direct upload URL for uploading a binary or text file to an app', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also clarifies scope by mentioning 'any file type' and 'raw binary', effectively distinguishing it from siblings like write_file or rename_file.
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 on when to use this tool (for direct uploads of binary/text files) and how to use the returned URL ('use the Bash tool to POST the file with curl'). It lacks an explicit comparison to alternatives, but the workflow guidance is strong enough to guide correct selection.
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.
