list_dropsList drops owned by the authenticated account (requires an sp_ API key; anonymous drops are not listable). Returns slug, url, name, file counts, and expiry, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max drops to return (1-500, default 100). | |
| offset | No | Number of drops to skip (default 0). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drops | Yes | ||
| total | Yes |
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?
Annotation Contradiction: readOnlyHint is false, yet the description says 'List drops' and 'Returns ...', which describes a non-mutating read operation. Even though the description is behaviorally honest about auth and output details, it directly conflicts with the structured readOnlyHint annotation, so it must score 1.
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?
Two compact sentences front-load the core purpose, then pack auth, return fields, and ordering without redundancy. Every clause adds information.
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 list operation with only optional pagination parameters and an output schema, the description covers scope, auth requirements, return content, and ordering. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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, with ranges, defaults, and meaning already in the schema. The description mainly contributes ordering ('newest first'), but does not need to explain limit/offset further.
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?
Description states a specific action ('List drops') with a precise scope ('owned by the authenticated account') and adds concrete distinguishing detail: requires sp_ API key and anonymous drops are not listable. This separates it from all sibling drop tools that mutate or deploy files.
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?
Clear context: use to list drops for an authenticated account, with an explicit precondition (sp_ API key) and an exclusion (anonymous drops cannot be listed). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but no sibling offers the same list operation, so the guidance is adequate.
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 lifecycle action: deploy_html vs deploy_files separate single-file from multi-file deploys, append_files adds to an existing drop, and claim/restore/delete/list cover different drop states. There is no meaningful overlap between tool purposes.
All nine tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, e.g. deploy_html, deploy_files, list_drops, restore_drop. The verbs clearly indicate the action and the nouns indicate the target resource.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a deployment service covering deploy, file management, lifecycle, and account/limit information. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary redundancy or overwhelming surface area.
The core drop lifecycle is covered: deploy, append files, claim, list, delete, and restore, plus account and limits context. Minor gaps exist around per-file updates/overwrites and named-drop redeployment not being exposed as an explicit tool, but agents can accomplish the main workflows.