Skip to main content
Glama

Dropyour

by io.dropyour

Graduate a drop into a real app

dropyour_graduate
Idempotent

GRADUATE one of your drops to tier 4 — a real backend (server code, queryable store, isolated SQLite) behind the SAME URL, with its data carried over. This ACTS: it creates the app, moves the data across, and switches the URL over. The owner is emailed. Requires an account token and the Pro tier; the URL never changes and visitors keep their data. Pass check=true to get the verdict WITHOUT doing anything. On refusal, returns the COMPLETE list of reasons with what to do about each. Nothing is changed on a refusal — the drop keeps serving.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checkNo
dropIdYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it creates the app, migrates data, switches the URL, emails the owner, leaves the URL stable, keeps visitor data, and changes nothing on refusal. This exceeds what annotations provide and does not contradict them.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds operational value. There is some redundancy around the URL remaining unchanged and data being preserved, but the overall density remains high and readable.

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?

Covers prerequisites, side effects, check mode, refusal behavior, and the unchanged-URL guarantee, which is enough to call the tool safely. The success return payload is not specified, but there is no output schema, and the refusal response behavior is described.

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 dropId and check with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains check=true as a no-op evaluation mode, but it never explicitly defines dropId, leaving that solely to the schema's pattern and the phrase 'one of your drops.'

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—'GRADUATE one of your drops to tier 4'—and explains the distinguishing outcome: a real backend behind the SAME URL with data carried over. This separates it from sibling operations like publish, release, or rollback without needing to open those tools.

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 clear context: requires an account token and Pro tier, and check=true provides a safe no-op verdict before committing. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of full 5, but usage conditions are clear.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources