deploy-agent-versionDeploy a version via POST /v1/deploy-ai-agent. Makes it active and copies instructions into bot_flow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version_id | No | Version id to deploy. Defaults to the latest inactive version. | |
| new_version_name | No | Optional name to store on the deployed version |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | JSON or plain text body returned by the Botsify HTTP API |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), the description discloses concrete behavioral effects: making the version active and copying instructions into bot_flow. This adds useful context for the agent. No contradictions with annotations.
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 a single sentence that packs essential information: endpoint, action, and side effects. No filler or redundancy; every part earns its place.
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 tool with two optional parameters, a rich schema, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the purpose, endpoint, and key side effects. Minor gap: no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. activate-agent-version, but that is partially covered by the side-effect statement.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add any further meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Deploy'), resource ('a version'), and the endpoint (POST /v1/deploy-ai-agent). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'activate-agent-version' by noting the additional side effect of copying instructions into bot_flow.
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 provides clear context: deploying makes the version active and copies instructions into bot_flow. It implies when to use this tool (full deployment) versus merely activating, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. This is clear context without formal alternatives.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as send-converse-message, send-inbox-message, send-user-message, and stream-user-message, which all deliver messages but with subtle differences. Similarly, list-bot-messenger-users and list-messenger-users both fetch messenger users, and start-builder-chat, clear-builder-conversation, and store-builder-response all manage builder chat state. Descriptions help, but the boundaries are still confusing.
Tool names consistently use hyphenated lowercase verb-noun format, but the verbs and nouns vary significantly in specificity. For example, 'get-query-response' vs 'query-mcp-agent' vs 'stream-user-message' all imply querying but with different styles. The pattern is readable but not highly predictable, with some names like 'change-user-activation' and 'patch-instruction-section' deviating from the simple verb_object structure.
With 44 tools, this server feels overloaded. The breadth covers bots, messaging, templates, whitelabel, and versions, but many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple message-sending variants). The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many', making it difficult for agents to select the right tool without extensive context.
The tool set covers the main lifecycle: agent creation, versioning, deployment, deletion, messaging, conversation history, user management, template management, and whitelabel operations. Minor gaps exist, such as missing delete for WhatsApp templates or update operations for user attributes, but these are workable edge cases. Core workflows are well supported.