dropyour_read_contentRead a drop's source HTML (what you published — no shared-memory shim, no attribution badge). For multi-file sites, also returns the list of asset paths (not their bytes). Large content is truncated (truncated=true, sizeBytes reports the real size). With an account token, owned drops need no managementToken.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dropId | Yes | ||
| managementToken | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true; the description adds significant behavioral detail: it returns asset paths but not bytes, truncates large content with truncated=true and sizeBytes, and explains when managementToken is unnecessary. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries distinct information: source HTML, asset paths and truncation, and auth behavior. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description still explains the main return behaviors: source HTML, asset path list, truncation flag, real size, and managementToken auth nuance. For a read-only tool with two parameters, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful auth-related meaning for managementToken ('owned drops need no managementToken with an account token'), but it does not explicitly explain semantcs of dropId beyond what the schema pattern implies. The compensation is partial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: it reads a drop's source HTML, which is exactly what was published. It also differentiates from likely siblings by noting 'no shared-memory shim, no attribution badge,' so an agent can distinguish it from call-style tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: use this when you want the raw published source HTML and asset-path list, not the shimmed or badged execution result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.