deploy_config_revision
Deploy a specific past revision of a configuration to staging or production.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config_uuid | Yes | ||
| revision_uuid | Yes | ||
| organization_uuid | Yes |
Air Pipe
by io.airpipe
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether deployment overrides existing state, requires permissions, or is destructive. Key details missing for safe invocation.
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?
Single clear sentence with front-loaded purpose. Could benefit from additional details but no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 required UUID params, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. Does not explain deployment semantics, response, or how to obtain revision_uuid.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and description adds minimal param information. Only implies target staging/production but does not explain what config_uuid, revision_uuid, or organization_uuid represent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (deploy), resource (specific past revision of a configuration), and target (staging or production). It distinguishes from sibling tools like deploy_module_revision by focusing on configuration revisions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., deploy_module_revision, plan_config). No prerequisites or context provided for selection.
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.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource (config or module) and action (create, read, update, delete, deploy, etc.), with clear descriptions that avoid overlap. No two tools appear to perform the same function.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_config, list_modules), with occasional specificity like deploy_config_revision. No mixing of conventions or unexpected naming.
Tool Count4/5
At 19 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a configuration management server covering CRUD, deployment, revision history, validation, and planning. Each tool earns its place.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of configurations and modules (create, read, update, delete, deploy, undeploy, toggle, validate, plan, edit). Minor gaps like bulk operations or search are absent but not critical for the domain.