Skip to main content
Glama

Setup Set

setup_set
Idempotent

Set one non-secret AppFactory configuration key, like asc_key_id or team_id; an empty value clears it. Secrets are refused—use setup_credentials instead.

Instructions

Set ONE non-secret config key such as asc_key_id, team_id or support_email; an empty value clears it.

Use when: changing a single key. Secrets are refused; use setup_credentials so they never pass through the chat. For several fields at once use config_set. Returns: {ok, key, error?}.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesNon-secret config key, e.g. 'asc_key_id', 'team_id', 'support_email'.
valueYesValue to store.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / key / description
      Added value: +"Non-secret config key, e.g. 'asc_key_id', 'team_id', 'support_email'."
    • addedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Added value: +"Value to store."
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: an empty value clears the key and secrets are refused with a redirect. It does not elaborate further on auth or rate limits, but for a simple config setter that is minor.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight lines: behavior first, routing guidance second, return shape last. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With annotations, a fully described schema, and an output schema present, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces (clearing semantics, secret refusal, sibling routing) and need not explain return values.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema's terse 'Value to store' by defining the empty-string clearing semantics and reinforcing the non-secret constraint on key.

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 (set) and resource (ONE non-secret config key), gives concrete key examples, and explicitly scopes to a single key versus several. An agent can distinguish it from config_set and setup_credentials without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides an explicit 'Use when' clause (changing a single key) plus two named alternatives with their selecting conditions: setup_credentials for secrets and config_set for multiple fields. Nothing is left to inference.

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