Skip to main content
Glama

reachpad-mcp

by io.github.Reachpad

Read an app

read_app
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one app before update_app: its name, type, access level and publishing mode, plus base_version_id and its files, which both describe the version the next edit builds on. Each text file carries its content, so this is how you see what an app already contains before changing it. A file marked content_omitted answer budget did not fit in this answer and read_app_file fetches it; one marked too large is past what any tool answer carries. Pass that base_version_id to update_app. version is what the link serves now, and head_version is the version base_version_id names on the apps where that is not the live one, which is every app with a version staged by publish false. pending_version is the number of that staged version, and publish_app_version is what makes it live.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_idYesThe app id, as returned by search_apps or create_app. Starts with app_.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructureHint, and the description adds real behavioral facts: files carry contents, content_omitted/too_large markers, and the meaning of version, head_version, and pending_version. The disclosure is comprehensive, though the wording is occasionally garbled ('content_omitted answer budget did not fit').

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single dense paragraph with run-on sentences and unclear pronoun references ('that staged version', 'where that is not the live one'). It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices readability and structure, making it harder to parse than necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description does attempt to cover the important return fields and file-content handling. However, the confusing syntax and ambiguous references leave gaps that an agent must resolve through trial or other tools.

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 only parameter, app_id, is already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description doesn't add parameter-level semantics; it focuses on output fields, which is appropriate, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Read one app before update_app', specifying the verb, resource, and the workflow slot. It distinguishes the tool from read_app_file and publish_app_version by naming those siblings for file content and publishing.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: call before update_app, pass base_version_id to update_app, use read_app_file for files whose content is omitted or too large, and rely on publish_app_version to make a staged version live. This fully routes an agent between alternatives.

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