Skip to main content
Glama

Dropyour

by io.dropyour

Roll a drop back to a version

dropyour_rollback
Idempotent

Roll a GRADUATED app back to a previously published version — this is the EXPECTED FAILURE PATH of dropyour_release, which calls it for you when a check fails. Reach for it directly when you published something broken outside that loop. It only moves a pointer: no bytes travel, nothing is rebuilt, and the URL never changes. Call dropyour_list_versions first and pass a version number you saw there; an unknown number is refused. Version 0 restores the frontend shipped at graduation. This does NOT step the app back down to a regular drop — that changes what the app is, and stays a human decision in the owner's cockpit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dropIdYes
versionYesA version number returned by dropyour_list_versions. 0 = the frontend shipped at graduation.
managementTokenNo

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it only moves a pointer, no bytes travel, nothing is rebuilt, the URL never changes, unknown versions are refused, and version 0 has special restoration semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and purposeful, with the core operation front-loaded and each sentence adding distinct value: scope, failure-path context, pointer-only behavior, prerequisite lookup, version-0 meaning, and a clear exclusion for regular-drop demotion.

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 is strong enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly: it covers purpose, prerequisites, failure behavior, and non-destructive semantics. Minor omissions are the optional managementToken semantics and what a successful response looks like, which would matter slightly more since no output schema is provided.

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?

Only the version parameter has schema-level description coverage, but the description compensates substantially by explaining that the version must come from dropyour_list_versions, that unknown values are rejected, and what version 0 means. It does not elaborate on dropId or managementToken, leaving a minor gap, but the critical parameter semantics are clarified.

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 states a specific action and resource: rolling a GRADUATED app back to a previously published version. It also clearly distinguishes itself from dropyour_release and from stepping an app down to a regular drop, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: rely on it for the expected failure path, or reach for it directly when you published something broken outside that loop. It also states preconditions — call dropyour_list_versions first and pass a known version — and warns against using it for demoting an app to a regular drop.

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