publish_app_versionMake one version of an app live by its number. This is how a version staged with publish false goes on the link, and how an app is rolled back: name an older number and that version is what the link serves again. Nothing is rebuilt, the pointer moves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app id, as returned by search_apps or create_app. Starts with app_. | |
| number | Yes | The version number to make live. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the call as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds useful context by stating 'Nothing is rebuilt, the pointer moves,' explaining that rollback is a pointer change rather than a rebuild or destructive operation. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 action, followed by the workflow context and a compact explanation of the underlying mechanism. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
For a simple two-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when it is used, and what happens to the app link. It lacks explicit error/precondition notes such as whether the named version must already exist, but this is minor for an idempotent pointer-move operation.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents app_id and number. The description reinforces that number is the version to make live and that older numbers trigger rollback, but it does not add significant new parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Make one version of an app live by its number.' It also clarifies the semantics in terms of the existing staged/publish-false workflow and rollback, so an agent can distinguish it from version-reading tools like list_app_versions and read_app_version.
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 conditions for use: it is how a staged version goes live and how an older version is rolled back. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or list when-not-to-use cases, but the use scenarios are unambiguous.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.