list_containersList an app's container formation — the running process types with their amount and size (the current scaling). Scalingo API: GET /v1/apps/{app}/containers. Returns { containers: [{ name, amount, size }] }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | The app name (e.g. my-production-app) or app id (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?
The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the return structure ({ containers: [{ name, amount, size }] }) and referencing the API endpoint. This clarifies the tool's output and behavior, though it does not cover every edge case.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and return format. Every word is useful, with no redundant or extraneous content.
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 read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the resource, the response shape, and the API call, leaving no major gaps in understanding.
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 schema already covers the single 'app' parameter with a description. The tool description reuses that concept without adding new details. With 100% schema coverage, this baseline score is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool lists an app's container formation, specifying it returns running process types with amount and size. It distinguishes from sibling list_* tools by focusing on container formation rather than apps, deployments, or variables.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scale_app or other list tools. It lacks when or when-not context, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: get_app vs get_app_logs vs get_app_stats are clearly different; list_addon_providers vs list_addons differentiate available vs provisioned. Mutation tools (restart, scale, trigger_deployment, set_variables) are unique. The fallback scalingo_request is a separate generic GET. No confusion between tools.
All tools use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, restart_, scale_, trigger_, set_). The only exception is 'scalingo_request' which breaks the pattern, but it is clearly documented as a power-user escape hatch. Overall very consistent.
21 tools is well-scoped for a PaaS platform covering core resources like apps, deployments, addons, domains, env variables, and collaborators. It covers the essential operations without being bloated; each tool serves a clear purpose.
The toolset is heavily read-oriented; mutations are limited to restart, scale, set_variables, and trigger_deployment. Missing CRUD for major resources: no create/delete app, add/remove collaborators, add/remove domains, provision/delete addons, or update app settings. Agents will face dead ends when needing to perform writes beyond the few covered.