spawnpoint

Set share address

set_share_slug

DestructiveIdempotent

Change the address a spawnpoint project is reached at: the part before .spwt.app, e.g. lunch-orders (lowercase letters, digits, and hyphens, 3 to 40 characters). The old address forwards to the new one for 30 days, then anyone can take it. People who verified their email on the old address verify once more on the new one. A chosen address is easy to guess, so keep an app restricted unless it is for everyone. Taken, reserved, or malformed names are refused with the reason. Ask before renaming an app the user did not just make: links already sent out start forwarding.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "set_share_slug"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	the new address: the part before .spwt.app, e.g. lunch-orders
`project_id`	Yes	the id of the project

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`note`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`changed`	Yes
`old_url`	No
`old_slug`	No
`project_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description earns credit by explaining the actual consequences: forwarding for 30 days, then the old name becoming claimable, and email re-verification for users on the old address. It also documents failure behavior (taken, reserved, or malformed names rejected with a reason).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core definition, then layers operational consequences and a renaming caution. Dense but each sentence carries information; only the example address overlaps with the schema's own description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema available and rich annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: format rules, irreversible 30-day forward, user-facing consequences, rejection reasons, and a confirmation guideline before renaming.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does add format rules beyond the schema (lowercase letters, digits, hyphens, 3-40 characters) plus the example lunch-orders, which is useful, though the slug example is duplicated in the schema description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource up front: 'Change the address a spawnpoint project is reached at', then concretizes it as 'the part before .spwt.app'. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like add_custom_domain, share_project, and set_public_paths.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance, including a confirmation rule ('Ask before renaming an app the user did not just make') and a security caveat about restricting apps with guessable addresses. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead for custom domains or sharing, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All spawnpoint tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.