lexq_deploy_undeployRemove the live version from traffic. The version stays ACTIVE but no longer serves requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memo | Yes | Undeploy reason (required) | |
| groupId | Yes | Policy group ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / groupId / patternAdded value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"Input schema / properties / memo / defaultRemoved value: -""Input schema / properties / memo / descriptionPrevious value: -"Undeploy reason"New value: +"Undeploy reason (required)"Input schema / properties / memo / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "groupId"
-]New value: +[
+ "groupId",
+ "memo"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable nuance by explaining the version 'stays ACTIVE but no longer serves requests.' This clarifies the destructive nature is limited to traffic removal, not deletion, which is beyond the annotation's binary hint.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core action and the crucial caveat. No filler or redundant wording.
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 simple tool with two documented required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral outcome. It could mention whether the operation is immediate or reversible, but that is a minor gap given annotations already flag destructiveness.
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 100%, with both params (memo and groupId) clearly described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so per the baseline for high coverage, a 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 the action: 'Remove the live version from traffic' and clarifies the effect by noting the version stays ACTIVE. It distinguishes from deploy_publish and rollback by focusing on traffic removal, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 on when to use this tool versus related tools like deploy_publish, deploy_rollback, or deploy_schedule. The description only explains what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
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.