Skip to main content
Glama

reachpad-mcp

by io.github.Reachpad

Set who can open an app

set_app_access
Idempotent

Change who can open an app: restricted (only the owner and named people), org_link (anyone signed in to the organization), or public_link (anyone with the URL). A password and an expiry apply to a public link only. Owner only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
levelYes
app_idYesThe app id, as returned by search_apps or create_app. Starts with app_.
passwordNoSet a password on a public link.
expires_atNoRFC 3339 timestamp after which a public link stops working.
clear_expiryNoRemove the expiry.
clear_passwordNoRemove the password.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) that is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying the owner-only restriction and the public-link-only scope for password and expiry.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and access levels are front-loaded, and the remaining sentences add only necessary constraints ('Owner only' and public-link-specific behavior).

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call-time facts: available levels, level semantics, the owner-only permission, and the conditions under which password/expiry apply. It is slightly thin on how 'named people' are managed, but this is partially covered by the sibling tool share_app.

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 high at 83%, with most parameters already described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining that password and expiry parameters only apply to public_link, which clarifies the relationship between level and the optional clear_password/clear_expiry fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Change') and a clear resource ('who can open an app'), then enumerates the three exact levels: restricted, org_link, and public_link. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like share_app, but the access-level framing makes the tool's purpose easy to identify.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides useful context such as 'Owner only' and 'password and an expiry apply to a public link only,' which guide when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer set_app_access over alternatives like share_app or update_app, leaving some routing to inference.

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