Skip to main content
Glama

Call one of my app's routes

dropyour_call

Call a route of YOUR OWN drop and get the real HTTP answer back: status, headers, duration, body. This is how you check that what you just published actually works, without asking a human to open the URL. The call goes through the SAME path a visitor takes, so you see the served bytes — badge, shim, security headers — not the stored file. It also traverses the same guards: a password-protected drop answers with its password page, a scheduled drop answers 404. That is information about your drop, not a limitation. There is NO url parameter, by design: you name a dropId and a path relative to it, never an address. IT IS A REAL REQUEST: it counts as an invocation and, if the route you call writes, it really writes. Pair it with dropyour_logs to read the lines your app emitted during THIS call (use the returned requestId). There is a HARD 10-SECOND DEADLINE on the whole exchange (headers and body): a route that takes longer answers 503 rather than hanging your tool call. Design long work as a scheduled job (dropyour_schedule) that returns immediately, not as a slow request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
pathNoPath relative to your app, starting with '/'. Cannot climb out ('..') nor reach the platform's own /__dropyour/ routes./
dropIdYes
methodNoGET
headersNoOnly accept, accept-language, content-type, if-none-match, if-modified-since and range are forwarded; the rest is reported back as dropped.
managementTokenNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond the sparse annotations: explains the request traverses the same path and guards, states there is no URL parameter by design, warns the call is a real request that counts as an invocation and can trigger writes, and discloses the hard 10-second deadline with 503 behavior. These are material behavioral traits not present in the structured annotations.

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?

Long but organized: purpose, behavioral caveats, timeout, and routing to sibling tools are each in distinct, purposeful sentences. The ALL-CAPS phrases add emphasis but are not bloated; still, a little repetition could be trimmed.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and non-trivial side effects, the description is unusually complete: return fields are listed, requestId is referenced for pairing with logs, the timeout failure mode is specified, and guard behavior is explained. An agent has enough context to invoke it appropriately.

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?

The description clarifies the core dropId/path model and explicitly rules out a URL parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, with schema coverage at 33% it does not fully compensate for undocumented parameters such as managementToken or body semantics; method is left to the schema enum and default. Adequate but not complete.

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: it calls a route of the user's own drop and returns real HTTP status, headers, duration, and body. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning this as the way to verify a published app actually works and by referencing dropyour_logs and dropyour_schedule as related alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use context ('check that what you just published actually works') and names alternatives: pair with dropyour_logs to read emitted lines, use dropyour_schedule for long work. It also tells the agent that scheduled drops answering 404 is expected behavior, not a limitation.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct resources and actions, and descriptions do a good job separating overlapping areas like call/release/status or read_content/read_app_files. The main risk is momentary confusion between publish/replace/release and the two read-content tools, but careful reading resolves it.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names share the dropyour_ prefix and use snake_case, but the overall pattern is mixed: read_* and list_versions use verb-first naming, while records_list, secret_set, secret_delete, and secrets_list use noun-first naming, and logs/status/whoami are bare nouns. Still readable, but not a consistent verb_noun convention.

Tool Count3/5

23 tools is on the heavy side for a single server and spans several distinct subdomains: drop lifecycle, graduated apps, data, records, secrets, scheduling, and auth. Each tool appears purposeful, but the surface could reasonably be split into focused servers.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full drop lifecycle — publish, replace, release, rollback, delete, status, settings — plus graduated app concerns like files, logs, versions, store records, app data, secrets, and scheduling. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated domain.