rotate_project_inboxUse when a project's private inbox URL may have leaked. Issues a new inbox key; every previously shared inbox link stops working immediately. get_project returns the new files_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project (website) id from list_projects, create_project, or bootstrap_site. |
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 clearly discloses the destructive consequence—every previously shared inbox link stops working immediately—and provides recovery guidance by noting that get_project returns the new files_url. This goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining exactly what is destroyed and how to obtain the replacement.
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 compact and front-loaded with the triggering condition, followed by the key behavioral fact and the recovery path. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy.
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 tool with a well-documented schema, clear annotations, and a description that covers the purpose, behavior, and post-condition, the context is complete. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly and understand the impact.
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?
The input schema already fully documents project_id with a description and format restriction, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The schema carries the semantic load here, and the description adds no parameter information, matching the baseline for complete schema coverage.
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 specifies a concrete action—rotating a project's private inbox URL—and clearly distinguishes it from generic updates by explaining the exact effect: issuing a new inbox key and invalidating previously shared links. This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable and distinct from siblings like update_project.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: when a project's private inbox URL may have leaked. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the use case is clear and specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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 are clearly separated by resource and action (get_client vs list_clients vs create_client), and the descriptions explicitly warn against misuse. However, update_account and update_team both cover renaming a workspace/team, and get_account and get_project both return plan/usage/branding, creating a couple of genuinely confusing boundaries.
The set overwhelmingly follows the snake_case verb_noun pattern: archive_client, create_form, get_submission, list_projects, rotate_project_inbox, test_webhook, etc. Minor deviations exist: bootstrap_site uses 'site' instead of 'project', update_team vs update_account introduces noun inconsistency, and upsert_project_webhook uses a different verb than the update_* family.
With 27 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold that signals a too-large surface for an MCP server. While the broad scope (clients, projects, forms, submissions, teams, billing, webhooks) explains the count, there are redundant near-duplicates like update_account/update_team and bootstrap_site overlapping with multiple create tools, making the set feel bloated rather than curated.
The lifecycle coverage for clients, projects, and forms is solid with create, read, list, update, and archive operations. However, there is no unarchive (explicitly noted as unavailable), no submission management beyond read (no delete/export/update), and no webhook delivery history, leaving notable dead ends and gaps in the core workflow.