Skip to main content
Glama

Layero

by ru.layero

Переменные окружения проекта

env_vars
Destructive

Project environment variables: list names, set them, remove them.

VALUES ARE NEVER READ BACK — not by you, not by the platform in its
response. Only names and lengths are returned. This is a deliberate rule
rather than an implementation limit: anything that reaches your answer
settles into the conversation history, and a secret that lands there
cannot be taken back. If the user asks "what is my key", say plainly
that you cannot show it and offer to set a new one.

`set` does not require knowing the other variables — the platform keeps
them. `unset` removes only the named ones.

A change needs a new deploy: variables are picked up at build time, not
on the fly. Say so, or the user will think nothing happened.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keysNoДля `action="unset"`: имена переменных, которые убрать.
actionNo`list` — показать имена (значения не возвращаются никогда), `set` — задать переменные из `values`, `unset` — удалить переменные, перечисленные в `keys`.list
valuesNoДля `action="set"`: пары имя → значение. Остальные переменные проекта сохранятся — присылать их заново не нужно.
projectYesПроект: слаг (`my-site`) или id. Слаг — то, что видно в адресе сайта; если пользователь назвал сайт словами, возьми слаг из `my_projects`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
changedNo
projectYes
variablesYes
next_actionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / action / description
      Added value: +"`list` — показать имена (значения не возвращаются никогда), `set` — задать переменные из `values`, `unset` — удалить переменные, перечисленные в `keys`."
    • addedInput schema / properties / keys / description
      Added value: +"Для `action=\"unset\"`: имена переменных, которые убрать."
    • addedInput schema / properties / project / description
      Added value: +"Проект: слаг (`my-site`) или id. Слаг — то, что видно в адресе сайта; если пользователь назвал сайт словами, возьми слаг из `my_projects`."
    • addedInput schema / properties / values / description
      Added value: +"Для `action=\"set\"`: пары имя → значение. Остальные переменные проекта сохранятся — присылать их заново не нужно."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by explaining a critical behavioral rule: values are never read back, by the agent or platform, to avoid embedding secrets in conversation history. It also clarifies that `set` preserves other variables and `unset` only affects named ones, plus the build-time pickup requiring a new deploy. This is rich, actionable context that the annotations alone do not provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average, but every sentence carries important information for safe and correct usage. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the crucial security warning and deployment caveat. The structure is logical, though slightly verbose; the length is justified by the sensitive nature of environment variables.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions, security implications, deployment behavior) and the presence of an output schema, the description is thorough. It covers return behavior (names/lengths only), the partial update semantics, and the need for redeploy. Combined with a complete input schema and destructive hint annotation, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and set user expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the input schema already describes each parameter (100% coverage), the description adds semantic depth: it clarifies that `values` for `set` are a partial map (other vars persist) and that `keys` for `unset` are the specific ones to remove. It also reiterates that `list` only returns names and lengths, reinforcing the `action` enum behavior. This adds value over the schema's bare parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Project environment variables: list names, set them, remove them.' This clearly states the tool's function and scope. It covers all three actions (list, set, unset) and is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on domains, analytics, deploy, and other project ops. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides useful usage context: `set` does not require knowing other variables, `unset` removes only the named ones, and changes require a new deploy. This helps an agent know when to use the tool and what to expect. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but since no sibling overlaps with env vars, this is acceptable. The guidance is clear enough for correct invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Layero toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. The deploy lifecycle is cleanly separated into cancel, retry, rollback, diagnose, logs, list, and status, while the site_* tools each answer a different question. Even the two compose_landing tools are explicitly differentiated for model vs. internal use.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix verb-first patterns (check_domain, list_deploys, connect_analytics) with noun-first patterns (site_issues, deploy_logs, env_vars), and some are bare verbs (rollback, whoami). The naming is descriptive and readable, but not consistent enough to predict the style for a new tool.

Tool Count2/5

27 tools exceeds the typical well-scoped range and pushes into 'too many' territory. While the server covers a broad platform scope, many tools are highly specialized (check_copy, site_screenshot), and an agent may be overwhelmed by the sheer number of choices. Consolidation could reduce the load.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is solid: compose, publish, monitor, diagnose, and rollback, with supporting tools for domains, analytics, performance, and content inspection. However, there are no delete/remove operations for projects, domains, or integrations, and integration management is limited to adding. These are minor gaps that agents can work around, but they are notable for a full platform.

Resources