Trigger a new deployment to the specified environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | main | |
| project | Yes | ||
| environment | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| queued_at | Yes | ||
| observed_at | Yes | ||
| deployment_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "deployment_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "observed_at": {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "queued_at": {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "deployment_id",
+ "status",
+ "queued_at",
+ "observed_at"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds that this is a new deployment to a specified environment, which aligns with the annotations and provides minimal extra context, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether it cancels existing deployments or requires special permissions.
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, direct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short and front-loaded, though it could include more detail without becoming bloated.
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 destructive, non-idempotent operation, the description lacks critical context: what happens to the current environment, whether ref is required despite having a default, and how this differs from retrying a build. An output schema exists, but it does not compensate for missing usage and side-effect information.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only references 'specified environment,' leaving project and ref semantics unexplained beyond the schema fields themselves. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool.
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 the action (trigger) and resource (deployment) and ties it to a selected environment. It is distinct from siblings like ci_retry_build since it creates a new deployment rather than retrying a build, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ci_retry_build or ci_run_build_command. The description implies use when a new deployment is needed, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or how it compares to sibling tools.
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.