Skip to main content
Glama

Redeploy

redeploy
Destructive

Run the latest archive through the deploy again (same files, fresh build).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "serviceId": "<serviceId>"
    },
    "name": "redeploy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serviceIdYesthe id of a service on this account

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
dataNo
errorNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / serviceId / description
      Previous value: -"the service id from list_services"New value: +"the id of a service on this account"
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context that the latest archive is reused and a fresh build is triggered, but it does not disclose potential downtime, cache effects, or what exactly is destroyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The phrase 'through the deploy' is slightly informal, but the core meaning is delivered immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description gives the essential behavior (same files, fresh build). It remains incomplete about when to use this versus deploy and what destructive effects to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single required serviceId parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not mention the parameter, so the schema carries the full burden, which is adequate for a one-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Run ... through the deploy again') and resource ('latest archive'), making the action clear. It indirectly distinguishes itself from deploy by saying 'again' and 'same files', but it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'same files, fresh build' – redeploy when you want to rebuild without changing files. However, it never states when to choose this over deploy or rollback, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources