Delete an empty folder. This refuses while the folder still holds apps or subfolders, and it never deletes an app. Move the contents out first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder_id | Yes | The folder to delete. |
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?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral detail: it refuses while the folder contains apps or subfolders, and it never deletes an app. This explains the real-world effects and constraints of the operation without contradicting the annotations.
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?
Three short sentences: the core action, the refusal conditions, and the required prerequisite. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the most important usage rule is front-loaded.
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 destructive tool with annotations already carrying safety hints, the description covers what the tool does, when it fails, and what the agent should do first. Nothing important is missing.
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%: the only parameter, folder_id, is described as 'The folder to delete.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but none is needed for such a simple schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an empty folder.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining that it refuses to delete folders containing apps or subfolders and never deletes an app, which separates it from tools like trash_app.
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 clear when-to-use guidance: only for empty folders. It also tells the agent what to do before calling it ('Move the contents out first') and states the failure condition when the folder is not empty. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like mv, but the guidance is strong enough.
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.
