list_deploymentsLists your app deployments. Each row carries status (provisioning/ready/build_failed/error), the current build phase while provisioning (installing/source/building/built/starting), the public access_point URL, port, repo, and build_log on failure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| next | No | ||
| deployments | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds valuable context about returned fields: status, build phase, URL, port, repo, build_log. 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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word adds value.
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?
Output schema exists but not shown; description covers key returned fields. For a list tool, this is largely complete, though could mention pagination if applicable.
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?
No input parameters, so description does not need to explain params. Baseline 4 applies as schema coverage is 100% and no parameter details are needed.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Lists your app deployments' directly states the action and object. Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_deployment' (single) and 'deploy_app' (create).
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?
Implies usage for listing all deployments but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. Does not mention alternatives or filtering mechanisms.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose, and the descriptions include specific details (e.g., create_database for Postgres vs create_relational_database for MySQL/MariaDB) that prevent confusion. Even similar tools like plan_deploy, plan_instance, and plan_managed_datastore are well-differentiated by their contexts.
The vast majority of tools follow the verb_noun pattern with underscores (create_*, list_*, delete_*, etc.). Only minor deviations like 'whoami' exist, but the overall pattern is highly consistent and predictable.
With 69 tools, the server has an excessive number for an MCP context, far exceeding the typical 3-15 range. While it may mirror the full redu.cloud API, the sheer count overwhelms agents and increases selection latency.
The tool set covers the majority of cloud management operations: CRUD for instances, volumes, databases, deployments, and more. However, update operations are missing for several resources (e.g., instance resize, volume resize), and there is no tool to modify deployments without redeploying.