Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Dropyour

by io.dropyour
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Cut an outbound domain for an app

dropyour_egress_deny
Idempotent

Cut a host your graduated app is calling — in ONE call, taking effect on the next request, with NO republish. This is the verb for the moment you read in dropyour_logs that a key is leaving toward something you did not intend. It OVERRIDES your app's own declaration: a host written literally in your code, or named by a secret, is normally reachable — listed here, it is refused, and the refusal is named hôte_refusé_par_le_propriétaire so your agent does not go edit code that has nothing wrong with it. Pass remove: true to lift it. Up to 32 patterns, same host grammar as secrets (leading *. wildcard allowed). Tier 4 only.

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>",
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "dropyour_egress_deny"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYesHost or pattern to cut, e.g. api.example.com or *.example.com.
dropIdYes
removeNotrue lifts the cut instead of adding it.
managementTokenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals that the change takes effect on the next request with no republish, overrides the app's own declarations, and produces a named refusal (`hôte_refusé_par_le_propriétaire`) to prevent pointless code edits. It also documents the reversible behavior via `remove: true`, adding significant operational context.

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 description is dense with operational facts and front-loads the core one-call, no-republish effect. The emphatic capitalization and narrative framing add some length, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information, so it earns a high but not perfect score.

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?

The description covers the effect timing, override semantics, refusal naming, removal, pattern limits, host grammar, and tier restriction, giving an agent a solid basis to call the tool correctly. Minor gaps remain around the management token and behavior when exceeding the 32-pattern limit, but overall it is quite complete.

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 schema covers only host and remove with descriptions; dropId and managementToken are left with no explanation. The description adds meaningful semantics for host grammar (leading `*.` wildcard, up to 32 patterns) and clarifies `remove: true`, but it does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters, so the gap remains.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Cut a host your graduated app is calling' — and explains it as the action that refuses outbound host calls. It clearly distinguishes this from the many sibling tools by framing it as an egress override with a named refusal, not a generic network operation.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger scenario ('the moment you read in dropyour_logs that a key is leaving toward something you did not intend') and tells the agent not to edit the app's code because the refusal is named. It also restricts use to Tier 4, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them.

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

All Dropyour toolsInspect
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.

Resources