apps_forkFork an app into your own account, to change independently of the original
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug of the app to fork | |
| new_slug | No | Slug for the copy. Generated from the original if omitted |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / new_slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Slug for the forked copy (optional, auto-generated if empty)"New value: +"Slug for the copy. Generated from the original if omitted"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations beyond title, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies that the original app remains unaffected ('change independently of the original') and that the copy lives in the user's account. However, it doesn't disclose permission requirements, side effects on the original, or the return behavior, leaving gaps.
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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Fork an app') and immediately explains the purpose ('to change independently of the original'), making it concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool is relatively simple, but the description omits some context critical for a mutation tool: whether the fork requires read access to the original, what the function returns (e.g., the new app or slug), and any implications for the original app. Given no output schema, the description should fill these gaps, but it only partially does.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (slug and new_slug), so the description doesn't need to add much. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides full documentation.
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 states a specific verb ('fork') and resource ('app'), and clarifies the purpose: to create an independent copy in the user's own account. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like apps_create (create from scratch) and apps_edit (modify existing).
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 gives clear context: use this tool when you want to fork an app into your own account to modify it independently of the original. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., apps_edit, apps_create), so it falls short of a 5.
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.