scale_appMUTATES Scalingo infrastructure — sets the container formation (number and/or size of each process type). Only the container types you include are changed. Returns 202 Accepted (track via get_operation). Scalingo API: POST /v1/apps/{app}/scale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | The app name (e.g. my-production-app) or app id (app-…). | |
| containers | Yes | Formation entries to apply. Each entry needs a name plus amount and/or size. |
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 provide destructiveHint: true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral details: returns 202 Accepted (asynchronous) and the API endpoint. This goes beyond what annotations offer. No contradictions.
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 three-sentence description is concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior, and endpoint. No redundant or vague language.
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?
Given no output schema, description explains the response (202 Accepted) and suggests tracking via get_operation. This is sufficient for an asynchronous mutation tool. It could mention the returned operation ID, but the guidance is adequate.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond schema—it mentions 'containers' as formation entries but doesn't elaborate on fields. The schema already describes each field adequately, so the description provides marginal added value.
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 explicitly states it "sets the container formation" and specifies it mutates infrastructure. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like restart_app or set_variables by focusing on scaling container types. The phrase "Only the container types you include are changed" adds 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?
The description indicates partial updates (only included types changed) and mentions tracking via get_operation for the asynchronous result. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the mutation context and sibling names make it clear this is the scaling tool. A small improvement would be to say 'Use this to scale, not to restart or reconfigure other settings.'
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.