Skip to main content
Glama

Record one deployment of a release in its deployment log (D198) — environment, artifact, commit, build URL, time, result, notes; append-only.

add_release_deployment

Record one deployment of a release in its deployment log (D198) — environment, artifact, commit, build URL, time, result, notes; append-only.

Appends one entry to the release's deployments (D198 (3)): seq, by, agent and recorded_at are set by board-core; deployed_at defaults to now, result to deployed. Project admins and release managers, and an AI agent with its user's rights (MCP / PAT / OAuth, D144 agent account) — in any state, planned or released (a deploy or rollback after the release is shipped is recorded too). Recording is a record, not an approval: it never ticks the gate, locks the baseline, changes the scope or ships the release. No version: board-core retries on a concurrent write itself. Entries are never edited or removed — record a new one to correct. 409 deployment_log_full at 500 entries. Releases off → 403 feature_disabled; free plan → 403 plan_required; members and viewers → 403 forbidden.

Record one deployment of a release in its deployment log (D198) — when the user asks you to log a deploy, or right after you deployed it yourself: environment (an environment id such as production, or free text), artifact (what was deployed, e.g. an image tag), optional commit (lowercase hex SHA), build_url (http/https link to the build), deployed_at (default now), result (deployed default, verified, failed, rolled_back) and notes (Markdown: put the verification results here), plus a short reason. Works in any state, planned or released (a deploy or rollback after shipping is recorded too); needs your user to be a project admin or release manager (else 403 forbidden), releases on (403 feature_disabled) and a paid plan (403 plan_required). No version. The log is append-only: entries are never edited or removed — record a new one to correct a mistake; 409 deployment_log_full at 500 entries. Recording is a record, never an approval: it does not tick the gate, lock the baseline, change the scope or ship the release — those stay with people in the web app. Members see an entry's environment, artifact, commit, time and result, but not its notes or build_url.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_key": "<project_key>",
      "release_id": "<release_id>",
      "environment": "<environment>",
      "artifact": "<artifact>"
    },
    "name": "add_release_deployment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoMarkdown, e.g. the verification results.
commitNoCommit SHA (7–64 lowercase hex).
reasonNoSpec D144: why you make this change (≤ 200 characters). Optional, but give it when you act as an agent account — it is shown in the agent's run log ("moved KJ-12 To Do → In Progress because <reason>"). board-mcp records it in `agent.run`; board-core / board-files accept it and ignore it (it never changes the file, the version or the history).
resultNodeployed
artifactYesWhat was deployed, e.g. an image tag or package name.
build_urlNo
release_idYesRelease id (spec D113): `R-` + a number, unique in its project; the file is `releases/R-{n}.md`.
deployed_atNoRFC 3339 timestamp with offset, e.g. `2026-09-23T09:00:00+07:00`.
environmentYesAn environment id of the project (e.g. production) or free text.
project_keyYesProject key, e.g. `KJ`. 2–10 chars, uppercase letters and digits, starts with a letter.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations it discloses which fields board-core sets (seq, by, agent, recorded_at), the defaults for deployed_at and result, that no version is needed because board-core retries concurrent writes, the append-only invariant, the 409 deployment_log_full cap at 500 entries, and the exact 403 conditions (feature_disabled, plan_required, forbidden by role). It even explains field-level visibility for members (notes and build_url hidden), which no annotation carries. Nothing here contradicts readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is heavily restated: append-only, 'any state, planned or released', the three 403 codes, 'No version', and the 409 cap all appear twice in near-identical wording. The title line is also duplicated verbatim as the first sentence. Front-loading is good, but roughly half the text is repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers permissions, plan/feature gates, defaults, concurrency behavior, log-capacity limits, visibility of the resulting entry, and the record-vs-approval distinction. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret failures.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 80% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: environment accepts an environment id or free text, artifact is 'what was deployed, e.g. an image tag', notes should carry the verification results, and reason is the agent-account rationale. It does not add format detail for commit or build_url beyond the schema patterns.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource (append one entry to a release's D198 deployment log) and enumerates the fields it carries. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as update_release or create_release because it explicitly states it never ships, locks, or changes scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete triggers: 'when the user asks you to log a deploy, or right after you deployed it yourself', and it excludes approval/shipping semantics. It does not name an alternative sibling tool to use instead when the intent is actually to ship or change a release, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources