Dropyour

Share access to one of my apps

dropyour_delegate

DestructiveIdempotent

Let ANOTHER Dropyour account maintain one of your apps, with a closed role, and take it back at any time. Granting: a human confirms it: with a connected account this answers confirmation_required with an address; the owner opens it, sees exactly what you asked and confirms (passkey or email); then call again with the SAME arguments within 5 minutes. Revoking and leaving are always free. action='list' (default) shows who has access. action='grant' gives email (the email of an EXISTING Dropyour account) the role 'mainteneur'. action='revoke' removes email; the cut is immediate, on every channel. action='leave' is for the delegate: give back your own access. Role 'mainteneur' covers: status, read content and app files, versions, logs, publish/replace (full scan, as always), patch, rollback, system milestones (dropyour_milestone), dropyour_call, dropyour_schedule. It does NOT cover: delete, transfer, delegate again, the secrets vault and egress policy, settings (visibility, password, expiration), management or edit links, the app's data and exports, graduation, app tools, links between apps, autonomy, billing. A delegate acts with their OWN account token or session; every act they make is recorded under their account in the audit trail. Typical use: a client grants 'mainteneur' to someone who helps them. When an integrator transfers an app, the transfer resets access and, by default, keeps the integrator as 'mainteneur'; revoke it here. Requires a connected account (no managementToken): a token proves you hold the drop, not who answers for whom you let in.

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": {
      "dropId": "<dropId>"
    },
    "name": "dropyour_delegate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	No	The role granted: 'mainteneur' (collaborator: publish, fix, roll back) or 'auditeur' (read-only: status, versions, audit log; never the data).	mainteneur
`email`	No	For grant/revoke: the email of the other person's Dropyour ACCOUNT.
`action`	No		list
`dropId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / role / description

Previous value: -"The role granted. Only 'mainteneur' exists today."New value: +"The role granted: 'mainteneur' (collaborator: publish, fix, roll back) or 'auditeur' (read-only: status, versions, audit log; never the data)."

changedInput schema / properties / role / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "mainteneur"
-]New value: +[
+  "mainteneur",
+  "auditeur"
+]

AddedOct 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses the human confirmation handshake — confirmation_required with an address, passkey or email confirmation, then a retry with identical arguments within a 5-minute window — plus that revocation is immediate on every channel, that a delegate acts under their own token and is audited, and that a connected account is mandatory (managementToken is not accepted). This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive, idempotency-flagged mutation.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and nearly every clause carries operative information (time limit, role scope, revoke path). It is dense and somewhat hard to scan — chained semicolons and nested colons ("Granting: a human confirms it: ...") plus long capability lists would read better as structured bullets — but the length is earned by the tool's complexity rather than padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description still explains the key return behavior: action='list' shows who has access, and a grant from a connected account answers confirmation_required with an address to open. It also states the auth prerequisite. Minor gaps remain — the precise failure mode when the email is not an existing Dropyour account, and the shape of list results — but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 50% (role and email are described in-schema; action and dropId are not), and the description compensates substantially: it defines all four action values, stresses that email must belong to an EXISTING Dropyour account, and enumerates the full capability scope of 'mainteneur' versus the schema's one-line 'auditeur' note. Only dropId's format is left entirely to the schema pattern.

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 — let another Dropyour account maintain one of your apps, with a closed role, revocable at any time — and then explicitly bounds it by listing what the role does NOT cover (delete, transfer, secrets vault, settings, edit links, data exports, billing), which implicitly routes the agent to the sibling tools that do those things. An agent can tell this apart from dropyour_update_settings, dropyour_delete, or dropyour_secret_set without opening any schema.

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 a concrete situation ("a client grants 'mainteneur' to someone who helps them"), explains each action's purpose, notes that revoking and leaving are always free, and tells the agent to revoke the integrator's default 'mainteneur' after a transfer. It stops short of naming specific sibling tools for the excluded operations, so routing to alternatives is implied rather than explicit.

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

All Dropyour 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.