create_appRegister a validated app slug in the current organization to receive its app ID and minimal Capacitor configuration without changing local files.
Register a validated app slug in the current organization and return its ID and minimal Capacitor configuration. Does not edit local files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | App slug, unique in the organization: 3-120 letters, digits, dots, underscores or hyphens |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return payload (ID plus minimal Capacitor configuration) and a concrete side-effect boundary ("Does not edit local files"), though it doesn't say what happens on a duplicate slug.
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 tight sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded, followed by the return contract and side-effect boundary. No filler, no restatement of the title.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is largely sufficient: the description carries the return-value burden itself (ID + Capacitor config) since no output schema exists. It is slightly thin on error/permission behavior and on how the new app relates to bundles or previews.
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?
There is exactly one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the pattern/length constraints fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes "validated app slug" and adds no format or uniqueness semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Register a validated app slug"), targets an explicit scope ("in the current organization"), and states the return payload. It implicitly separates itself from create_preview/list_apps through the word "app," but it never names a sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrasing: one would use this to provision an app in an org. There is no statement of when to prefer it over create_preview or list_apps, no prerequisite (e.g. org must exist / slug must be free), and no exclusion beyond "Does not edit local files."
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.