List the people an app is shared with, their roles, and whether the grant has attached to an account yet. Owner only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app id, as returned by search_apps or create_app. Starts with app_. |
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?
Annotations already signal readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-obvious behavior: it reports the roles attached and whether the grant has been claimed by an account, plus the owner-only authorization requirement. This exceeds what the annotations alone convey.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action comes first, the return content is summarized, and the authorization constraint is appended compactly. Every clause 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 simple one-parameter, read-only list operation, the description provides the essential context: what is listed, what fields are included, and who may call it. There is no output schema, so the description's mention of people, roles, and grant attachment partially fills that gap, though a bit more return-format detail could make it fully self-sufficient.
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 100% and the single app_id parameter is well documented in the schema, including its format and how to obtain it. The tool description does not need to add param detail and adds none, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List the people an app is shared with,' and specifies the meaningful output dimensions: roles and whether the grant has attached. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like share_app and revoke_app_share, which mutate sharing rather than read it.
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 gives a clear usage context: this is the read-only listing operation for app shares, and it adds an explicit access constraint, 'Owner only.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as share_app or revoke_app_share for modifying shares, so the when-not-to-use guidance is mostly implied by the verb.
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 target clearly distinct actions and resources, such as app CRUD, versioning, sharing, secrets, and folder operations. A few adjacent tools like read_app, read_app_file, and read_app_version, or update_app and publish_app_version, require careful reading, but their descriptions are explicit enough to prevent serious confusion.
The set mostly uses a verb_noun pattern, with names like create_app, list_secrets, set_app_access, and trash_app. However, Unix-style commands like ls, mkdir, mv, tree, and whoami, plus mixed verbs such as get, read, list, remove, and revoke, break any single consistent convention.
24 tools is on the heavy end of the 16-25 range, and while the platform covers apps, versions, folders, sharing, secrets, logs, and databases, the count feels somewhat large. Each tool has a defined role, but several could potentially be consolidated without losing clarity.
The surface covers the main lifecycle well: creating, reading, updating, versioning, sharing, securing, and organizing apps, plus secrets and database queries. Notable gaps are the lack of a permanent delete or restore tool for trashed apps, and the stated absence of captured function logs, but these are workable limitations rather than dead ends.
