get_operationPoll the status of an asynchronous operation (e.g. a scale or restart returns an operation to track). Scalingo API: GET /v1/apps/{app}/operations/{operation_id}. Returns { operation } with status pending|running|done|error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | The app name (e.g. my-production-app) or app id (app-…). | |
| operation_id | Yes | The operation id (returned in the Location header of a scale/restart response). |
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 annotations already set readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the return structure, status values (pending|running|done|error), and the API endpoint, which are beyond 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?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage context, and return format without unnecessary words.
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 no output schema, the description provides the return structure and status values. It also includes the HTTP method and URL, making it complete for understanding what the tool does and what to expect.
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 descriptions are already present for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds the specific context that operation_id comes from the Location header of a scale/restart response, which aids understanding beyond the schema.
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 the tool polls the status of an asynchronous operation, with a specific verb 'Poll' and resource 'status of an asynchronous operation'. It differentiates from sibling tools which are about getting other resources like apps or logs.
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 provides context by mentioning it is used for operations from scale or restart, and gives an example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, so it's not a full 5.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: get_app vs get_app_logs vs get_app_stats are clearly different; list_addon_providers vs list_addons differentiate available vs provisioned. Mutation tools (restart, scale, trigger_deployment, set_variables) are unique. The fallback scalingo_request is a separate generic GET. No confusion between tools.
All tools use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, restart_, scale_, trigger_, set_). The only exception is 'scalingo_request' which breaks the pattern, but it is clearly documented as a power-user escape hatch. Overall very consistent.
21 tools is well-scoped for a PaaS platform covering core resources like apps, deployments, addons, domains, env variables, and collaborators. It covers the essential operations without being bloated; each tool serves a clear purpose.
The toolset is heavily read-oriented; mutations are limited to restart, scale, set_variables, and trigger_deployment. Missing CRUD for major resources: no create/delete app, add/remove collaborators, add/remove domains, provision/delete addons, or update app settings. Agents will face dead ends when needing to perform writes beyond the few covered.