apps_buildBuild a small app from a description, save it, and return its details and URL. An app is a single page — a tracker, a checklist, a counter — that keeps its own store and runs in the browser
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | Description of the app to build, e.g. 'an expense tracker', 'a packing checklist', 'a water intake counter' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / prompt / descriptionPrevious value: -"Description of the app to build (e.g. 'an expense tracker', 'a packing checklist', 'a water intake counter')"New value: +"Description of the app to build, e.g. 'an expense tracker', 'a packing checklist', 'a water intake counter'"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no read-only or destructive hints in the annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool saves the app, returns details and URL, and specifies the app is a single-page browser app with its own store, which gives useful behavioral context beyond the schema.
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-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds value. It is concise and structured effectively with no wasted words.
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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it saves, and what it returns. It could mention the app ID or persistence details, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.
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 fully describes the single 'prompt' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about app type (small, single-page) but does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema.
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 builds a small app from a description, saves it, and returns details and URL. It distinguishes itself from read/run/search siblings by focusing on creation from a prompt, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'apps_create'.
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 implies usage by specifying the input is a description and the output is a saved single-page app, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like apps_create or apps_edit. No exclusions or alternative tool guidance is provided.
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.
Every tool is prefixed with a clear domain (e.g., apps_, blog_, transit_), and the suffix identifies a distinct action or resource. Overlapping tools like archive_search and news_search are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions.
All tools consistently use a domain_prefix_suffix pattern, but the suffix is sometimes a verb (create, list, search) and sometimes a noun (inbox, status, address). This minor mixing prevents a perfect score but remains predictable and readable.
With 113 tools, the count is far beyond the typical well-scoped range, even for a broad personal assistant. While each tool is distinct and serves a purpose, the sheer number is overwhelming and could be better organized into separate domain-specific servers.
Each domain has near-complete lifecycle coverage, including CRUD and search where relevant, with only minor gaps such as missing apps_delete or events_update. The wide range of covered domains itself demonstrates strong completeness for a general assistant.