Nebelus

Create deployment

create_deployment

Create a DRAFT deployment channel for the agent (does NOT publish the agent). Activate it separately with activate_deployment. Identity-unverified self-serve orgs may only use web-widget.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name for this deployment (unique per agent + type).
`config`	No	Channel config. Optional config.interactiveElements maps forms/buttons/multichoice to booleans.
`agent_id`	Yes	Target agent's id (from list_agents / create_agent / get_catalog view=agents).
`description`	No	Optional description.
`deployment_type`	Yes	Channel type.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / agent_id / description

Added value: +"Target agent's id (from list_agents / create_agent / get_catalog view=agents)."

addedInput schema / properties / config / description

Added value: +"Channel config. Optional config.interactiveElements maps forms/buttons/multichoice to booleans."

addedInput schema / properties / deployment_type / description
```
Added value: +"Channel type."
```

addedInput schema / properties / deployment_type / enum

Added value: +[
+  "web-widget",
+  "slack",
+  "discord",
+  "whatsapp",
+  "telegram",
+  "api",
+  "mobile",
+  "chrome-extension",
+  "wordpress",
+  "shopify"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / description / description
```
Added value: +"Optional description."
```

addedInput schema / properties / name / description

Added value: +"Name for this deployment (unique per agent + type)."

First observedSep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate a write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds crucial behavior: creation is a draft, does not publish, and requires separate activation. It also surfaces an org-type restriction not present in annotations. No contradiction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, each carrying distinct info: purpose, non-publication, activation, and an eligibility constraint. No redundancy or filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers core behavior, non-publication, activation pathway, and a key constraint. Lacks explicit return-value description, but no output schema exists, and for a draft-creation tool this is acceptable given the strong parameter coverage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with every parameter having a description (including the nested config). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; the web-widget mention reinforces an enum value but doesn't explain it.

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?

Verb 'create' + resource 'deployment channel' + qualifier 'DRAFT' makes the purpose unambiguous. It explicitly states it does NOT publish, and names activate_deployment as the activation step, distinguishing it from siblings like update_deployment and probe_deployment.

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?

Names the companion tool activate_deployment and explains the draft/activation split, giving clear context for when to use this tool. Also discloses an eligibility rule (identity-unverified self-serve orgs → web-widget only), which guides channel selection. Does not explicitly say when to avoid it, but the activation mention implies the workflow.

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

All Nebelus tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?