unpublish_appTake the published app offline and release its subdomain — destructive, confirm with the user first. Details: get_guides('publishing').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description reinforces that. It adds the specific behavior of releasing the subdomain and the requirement for user confirmation, which goes beyond the annotation. It also references get_guides for further details, providing additional context for the agent. While not exhaustive (e.g., data retention), it sufficiently discloses the destructive 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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and warning are front-loaded, and the reference to get_guides is a concise way to point to further details. Every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with a clear destructive hint, the description covers the essential action and the confirmation requirement. It also references the guide for deeper instructions. It does not mention side effects beyond subdomain release, but given the destructiveHint and the pointer to get_guides, the description is adequately complete for an agent to call it correctly, though it could be slightly richer.
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 schema has one parameter (projectId) with zero schema description coverage, meaning the description does not explain it. The tool description never mentions projectId, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. Even though the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no clarity about its purpose or format.
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 verb ('take offline') and the resource ('published app' plus 'subdomain'), making it obvious this is the inverse of publish_app. It also differentiates from siblings like republish_app by specifying the offline action and subdomain release.
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 a strong usage context by flagging the action as destructive and instructing to confirm with the user first. It also points to get_guides('publishing') for additional detail, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool. The sibling list suggests obvious opposites (publish_app, republish_app) but no explicit exclusion is stated.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but there is some overlap among file-modifying tools (edit_file, write_file, apply_patch) and between run_code_in_vm and run_code_in_browser. Detailed descriptions and clearly scoped use cases help agents select correctly.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_project, list_files, execute_sql), but a few deviate (apply_patch, card_upload_asset, run_code_in_vm). Overall readable and predictable, with only minor inconsistencies.
With 46 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range and approaches the extreme threshold. While the broad scope of a full development platform justifies many tools, this count may overwhelm agents and increase misselection risk.
The tool surface covers the full development lifecycle: project creation, file operations, database management, resource provisioning, deployment, testing, and debugging. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_project or checkpoint management), but core workflows are well-supported.