Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Flisk App Builder

Flisk App Builder

Official
by flisk-sh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

tool_add

Destructive

Add a development tool or service by everyday name (React, Next.js, FastAPI, PostgreSQL) to a Flisk project, report the outcome, and start it with the up command.

Instructions

Add a tool by its everyday name (react, nextjs, fastapi, nodejs, postgresql, mysql, mongodb, rag, embeddings, llm-api) with flisk tool add <tool> --json, which runs the matching flisk resource command. data.status says what happened: resource (created; data.resource is the resource_create result), built-in (docker: nothing to do), manual (angular, tailwind, spring-boot, github-actions, jutro, policycenter: data.steps are steps to show the user; nothing was changed), or an error for a rejected tool (aws, google-cloud, azure, kubernetes): Flisk runs everything locally and never creates cloud resources, so do not work around it. Call up afterwards to start a new resource. Set projectPath when the MCP server is not running from the project root.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tool": "<tool>"
    },
    "name": "tool_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoResource name (default per tool, for example web, server, db); a name already in use is refused
toolYesThe tool to add, by id or everyday name ("Next.js", "google cloud"): react, nextjs, angular, tailwind, nodejs, fastapi, spring-boot, postgresql, mysql, mongodb, rag, embeddings, llm-api, docker, github-actions, weather, chart, services, jutro, policycenter, aws, google-cloud, azure, kubernetes
stackNoStack to assign the resource to
dryRunNoPreview the resource without writing files or reserving a port
projectPathNoAbsolute path to the Flisk project root; run this operation from that directory.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.4.64

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by enumerating every outcome in data.status: resource (created), built-in (docker: nothing to do), manual (nothing was changed; show data.steps to the user), or error for rejected cloud tools. The manual-mode disclosure that "nothing was changed" is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance annotations cannot convey, and the cloud-rejection policy prevents wasted retries.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the accepted names, then the outcome states, then the follow-up call. Dense but each clause carries information; the long parenthetical tool lists are the only mildly heavy element.

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?

For a five-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the valid inputs, every result branch of data.status, the required follow-up, and the cloud-tool restriction. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description still adds value by explaining the condition under which projectPath matters and by expanding the accepted tool identifiers beyond the raw enum-free string parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add a tool") and immediately enumerates the accepted everyday names plus the equivalent CLI form, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It also positions itself relative to sibling resource_create by explaining that data.resource is the resource_create result.

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?

Gives clear follow-up guidance ("Call `up` afterwards to start a new resource") and a conditional prerequisite (set projectPath when the MCP server is not running from the project root). It also says not to work around rejected cloud tools. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer this over calling resource_create directly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools