update_entity_schemaReplace or shallow-merge an existing entity schema file. Creates a Saved Version before writing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| merge | No | ||
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| entity | Yes | Entity name | |
| schema | Yes | Schema fields to set or merge | |
| indexes | No | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| relationships | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a valuable behavioral detail—'Creates a Saved Version before writing'—which is a safety mechanism not captured in annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also clarifies the replace vs merge modes, providing context beyond the structured fields.
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 sentences with no filler. The primary action and a key side effect are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no explicit guidance on alternatives, the description is insufficient. It omits explanations for indexes, metadata, relationships, and does not discuss return values, validation behavior, or potential pitfalls. The agent relies heavily on the schema alone.
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 only 43%, leaving several parameters (merge, indexes, metadata, relationships) without schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by explaining the merge behavior via 'shallow-merge', but it does not clarify the other parameters, leaving gaps for the agent.
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 uses a specific verb ('Replace or shallow-merge') and resource ('existing entity schema file'), clearly distinguishing from sibling create_entity_schema. The phrase 'existing' and the mention of a Saved Version add precision.
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?
It implies the tool is for existing schemas (as opposed to creating new ones) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like create_entity_schema or update_entity_metadata. No when-not-to-use conditions are given.
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.