Register an app in your hosting account when its files are already uploaded to app_dir. Provides app_name and app_dir to create the app record, optionally specifying domain and deploy_type.
Register an app whose files were already uploaded to app_dir.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | ||
| app_dir | Yes | ||
| app_name | Yes | ||
| deploy_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this operation mutates state, whether it triggers deployment, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. 'Register' suggests a write operation, but the consequences are undisclosed.
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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the key prerequisite but omits essential context that would justify its length.
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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the registration workflow, the meaning of deploy_type, or what happens after registration, leaving an agent to guess at critical invocation details.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions app_dir. It does not explain app_name, domain, or deploy_type, nor how they relate to the registration process. The required parameters are not all described.
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 'Register an app whose files were already uploaded to app_dir.' states a verb and resource, but it is vague about what 'register' means in this system and how it differs from ecp_apps_create_from_git or ecp_apps_deploy_step. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from the many app-related siblings.
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 a prerequisite (files already uploaded to app_dir) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over ecp_apps_create_from_git, ecp_apps_deploy_step, or ecp_apps_update_domain. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.