Skip to main content
Glama

reachpad-mcp

by io.github.Reachpad

Move an app or folder

mv
Idempotent

Move an app into a folder, or move a folder under another folder. Name exactly one of app_id or folder_id as the thing being moved, and to_folder_id as the destination, or null for the top level. Moving a folder also needs base_updated_at, the value read from ls or tree, so a move made against a stale reading is refused instead of undoing someone else's.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_idNoThe app to move. Name this or folder_id, not both.
folder_idNoThe folder to move. Name this or app_id, not both.
to_folder_idYesThe destination folder id, or null to move to the top level.
base_updated_atNoThe moved folder's updated_at, from ls or tree. Required when folder_id is given.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), the description reveals an important behavioral guard: stale reads are refused rather than silently overwriting another user's move. It also discloses the exactly-one-of-two-identifiers rule, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the exclusivity rule, destination semantics, and the stale-move guard. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

For a mutating tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operational requirements: what can be moved, exclusivity, destination behavior, and the conditional base_updated_at requirement. It does not describe the return value, but this is a minor omission for a move operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters: exactly one of app_id/folder_id, top-level use of null to_folder_id, and the necessity of base_updated_at for folder moves. This goes beyond the field-level schema descriptions.

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 verb and resource: move an app or folder. It precisely distinguishes the two use cases (app into folder, folder under folder) and differentiates itself from read-only siblings like ls and tree by describing a mutation 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?

The description gives clear usage constraints: name exactly one of app_id or folder_id, use to_folder_id as destination or null for top level, and provide base_updated_at when moving a folder. It mentions that base_updated_at comes from ls or tree, giving practical guidance, though it does not explicitly list alternative tools.

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

All reachpad-mcp 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct actions and resources, such as app CRUD, versioning, sharing, secrets, and folder operations. A few adjacent tools like read_app, read_app_file, and read_app_version, or update_app and publish_app_version, require careful reading, but their descriptions are explicit enough to prevent serious confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mostly uses a verb_noun pattern, with names like create_app, list_secrets, set_app_access, and trash_app. However, Unix-style commands like ls, mkdir, mv, tree, and whoami, plus mixed verbs such as get, read, list, remove, and revoke, break any single consistent convention.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is on the heavy end of the 16-25 range, and while the platform covers apps, versions, folders, sharing, secrets, logs, and databases, the count feels somewhat large. Each tool has a defined role, but several could potentially be consolidated without losing clarity.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the main lifecycle well: creating, reading, updating, versioning, sharing, securing, and organizing apps, plus secrets and database queries. Notable gaps are the lack of a permanent delete or restore tool for trashed apps, and the stated absence of captured function logs, but these are workable limitations rather than dead ends.

Resources