Skip to main content
Glama

reachpad-mcp

by io.github.Reachpad

Search apps

search_apps
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find apps in the caller's organization by text. This matches substrings of the name and the slug, not meaning, so search for a word that appears in the title rather than describing the app. Returns ids and live URLs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoText to match against the name and the slug.
typeNoKeep only apps carrying this badge.
limitNoHow many rows to return. Defaults to 50.
created_byNoKeep only apps owned by this user id or email address.
updated_byNoKeep only apps owned by this user id or email address. Version authors are not indexed in v1, so this filters on the owner.

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?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful transparency beyond annotations by explaining that matching is literal substring-based, confined to the caller's organization, and that the result includes ids and live URLs. This does not contradict the 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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then provides the matching caveat and return information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers the key context: scope, matching behavior, and return value highlights. There is no output schema, so stating that results include ids and live URLs is valuable. It could mention ordering or pagination explicitly, but the limit parameter and default are already in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the main parameter q by clarifying that it is a substring match on name and slug, not semantic search. Other parameters are already well explained in the schema, so the description complements rather than repeats them.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding apps in the caller's organization by text. It also specifies the matching behavior (substring on name and slug, not semantic meaning) and what is returned (ids and live URLs), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like read_app or get_app_logs.

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 guidance on how to query: use words that appear in the title rather than describing the app's meaning. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools, but the discovery-oriented purpose and search-specific semantics are strong enough context for selection.

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