seed_entityCompatibility tool for starter-record creation. Inserts directly for the authenticated app owner; by default it only seeds an empty entity (skip_if_not_empty).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | append always inserts; skip_if_not_empty inserts only when the entity is empty | skip_if_not_empty |
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| entity | Yes | Entity name | |
| reason | No | Why these records should be created | |
| records | Yes | Records to insert |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / mode / descriptionPrevious value: -"append always proposes creation; skip_if_not_empty proposes only when the entity is empty"New value: +"append always inserts; skip_if_not_empty inserts only when the entity is empty"Input schema / properties / records / descriptionPrevious value: -"Records to propose for creation after approval"New value: +"Records to insert"Input schema / properties / mode / descriptionPrevious value: -"append always inserts; skip_if_not_empty inserts only into an empty entity"New value: +"append always proposes creation; skip_if_not_empty proposes only when the entity is empty"Input schema / properties / reasonAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "description": "Why these records should be created",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / records / descriptionPrevious value: -"Records to insert"New value: +"Records to propose for creation after approval"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose the default mode behavior (skip_if_not_empty), but the phrase 'seeds an empty entity' is confusing and contradicts the mode's actual semantics (it inserts only when the entity is empty, not seeds an empty entity). No mention of side effects, idempotency, or permission requirements.
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 sentence, which is concise, but it uses vague terms ('compatibility', 'starter-record') and confusing phrasing that hampers clarity. It's not well-structured for quick comprehension.
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?
With five parameters, no output schema, and many related sibling tools, the description should differentiate from create_entity_records and explain edge cases. It doesn't mention what happens when the entity already has records (beyond the schema's mode), return values, or error behavior. The lack of any sibling differentiation makes it incomplete.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that inserts are 'directly for the authenticated app owner,' which clarifies ownership, and explains the mode default. However, the 'seeds an empty entity' phrasing is misleading and doesn't add clear value beyond the schema's mode description.
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 states it inserts records for the authenticated app owner, but the terms 'compatibility tool' and 'starter-record creation' are vague and don't clearly define what the tool does or how it differs from sibling tools like create_entity_records. The purpose is partially clear but lacks specificity.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'compatibility tool' hints at legacy use but never explains the conditions for selecting it over create_entity_records or update_entity_records. There is no when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are some overlapping pairs like read_app_file/read_app_files and create_entity_records vs seed_entity, which could cause misselection. Singular/plural variants and compatibility tools introduce minor ambiguity, but the majority are well-separated.
Tool names predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_app, get_entities, delete_secret). There are some variations like 'agency_create_client' and 'seed_entity' that deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
With 82 tools, the server is far above the typical range and feels overwhelming. Even for a full platform API, the count is extreme and likely increases selection complexity. A more curated set would improve navigability without sacrificing capability.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering app lifecycle, file operations, entity CRUD, versioning, A/B testing, secrets, integrations, domains, agents, scheduling, policies, and member management. No obvious missing operations for the platform's scope; it even includes validation and workflow guidance tools.