trash_appMove an app to the trash. Its link stops opening at once. Owner only. The app and its versions are kept and can be restored from Trash at reachpad.dev/apps/trash, which is also the only place an app is deleted for good.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app id, as returned by search_apps or create_app. Starts with app_. |
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 it as destructive/not read-only, but the description adds crucial behavior beyond that: the app link stops immediately, the app and versions are retained, restoration is possible, and permanent deletion only occurs at the Trash URL. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.
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 short sentences front-load the action and effect, then pack ownership, retention, restoration, and permanent-deletion distinction into the closing sentence. Every clause earns its place; 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 single-parameter mutation tool, the description covers what happens on invocation, who can invoke it, that data is recoverable, and where permanent deletion occurs. The absence of an output schema is not a gap because no return value is needed for an agent to call this correctly.
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?
The input schema fully documents the only parameter, app_id, including its origin and prefix convention, so the description need not add parameter-level detail. The description adds no parameter semantics, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('an app') with target 'trash', and immediately clarifies the practical effect ('Its link stops opening at once'). The description also distinguishes from permanent deletion by noting the trash is the only place an app is deleted for good, which separates it from any destructive deletion intent among siblings.
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?
Provides clear context and constraints: owner-only access, immediate effect, and restorability. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or an explicit 'when not to use' statement, though the permanent-deletion note implies the trash interface is the alternative for full deletion.
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.