list_deploysReturn staging sessions for the team this token belongs to. Defaults to currently-active ones (open + committing). Up to 50 rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status. Default lists 'open' and 'committing' (the actionable ones). Pass an explicit status to inspect history. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessions | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / request_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent; the description adds beyond that by declaring team-scoped results, default status filtering, and the 50-row limit. These are useful behavioral details not encoded in the annotations, though the description does not detail output ordering or pagination beyond the row cap.
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 three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, default filter, and result limit. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler or restatement of the tool name.
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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers scope, defaults, history behavior, and result limits. No critical missing context is needed for an agent to call it correctly.
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 the schema already documents the single status parameter, its enum, and its default behavior. The description's mention of 'open + committing' and history inspection mostly restates that schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning beyond the overall context.
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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Return staging sessions for the team this token belongs to.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_sites and list_snapshots, and the default-behavior clause removes ambiguity about what a plain call returns.
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 explicitly says the default returns active sessions ('open + committing') and that 'Pass an explicit status to inspect history,' guiding the agent on when to supply the status parameter. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 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.