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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (trigger deployment) but omits side effects (e.g., initiates CI pipeline, may take time, could affect production) and does not clarify reversibility or permission requirements. Overlaps with sibling tools without noting distinctions.
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?
One short sentence is concise, but it is under-specified; it doesn't earn its place by adding substantial context. It lacks structure like action, resource, and usage hints. It is not verbose but offers minimal information.
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?
With no annotations: output schema exists but description doesn't explain trigger behavior, possible errors, or return values. Complexity is low (3 params, simple action) but description is too thin to fully guide correct invocation, especially for a deployment action with environments.
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 0% and there are 3 parameters, so description must compensate. It adds no details about the 'ref' parameter or the meaning of 'environment' beyond the schema's enum. Baseline for missing coverage is low, but since the description is minimalynd provides no added meaning, score is 3 for partial compensation.
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 verb (trigger) and resource (deployment) with a specified environment, distinguishing it from build-status or build-log related sibling tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state the project context or differentiate from build-related actions, leaving some ambiguity with ci_run_build_command.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ci_retry_build or ci_run_build_command. The description is generic and doesn't mention that it initiates a new deployment as opposed to checking status or retrying. Lacks context about preconditions (e.g., pipeline configured) or choice of environment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.