Layero

Перезапустить упавшую сборку

retry_deploy

Поставить упавшую сборку в очередь заново.

Разрешено ТОЛЬКО для сборок в состоянии `failed`. На идущей сборке
(`queued`, `building`) платформа откажет — это не ошибка, а защита от
второй параллельной сборки.

⚠️ Повтор осмыслен, когда причина отказа была внешней (сеть, реестр,
таймаут). Если сборка упала на коде, повтор даст тот же результат: сначала
`diagnose_deploy`, потом правка, и только потом повтор.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deploy`	No	id сборки. Без него берётся самая свежая.
`project`	Yes	Проект: слаг (`my-site`) или id. Слаг — то, что видно в адресе сайта; если пользователь назвал сайт словами, возьми слаг из `my_projects`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`deploy_id`	Yes
`next_action`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations only provide openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it delivers: states that the platform will reject running builds (not an error but protection), and warns that retrying code-failures will produce the same result. It doesn't mention the return format, but the output schema exists to cover that.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight paragraphs: one-sentence core action, explicit state constraints, and a decision-guiding scenario. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. The warning emoji and structured flow (diagnose→fix→retry) make it scannable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has an output schema covering return values and full parameter coverage, so the description focuses on the critical decision context: which states are valid, what rejection means, and when retrying is futile. It could optionally mention rate limiting or auth, but these are well covered by the existing schema and annotations for this tool's complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema covers both parameters at 100%, and the description adds practical context: the project parameter's slug explains how to derive it from user-provided site names ('возьми слаг из my_projects'), and the deploy parameter's default behavior (без него берётся самая свежая) is hinted by schema but reinforced. The description adds useful real-world semantics beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource combo ('Поставить упавшую сборку в очередь заново' - put a failed build back in queue), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_deploy, rollback, and diagnose_deploy. It explicitly scopes to failed builds.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: only for builds in 'failed' state, explicitly excludes queued/building states, and explains the platform rejection behavior. Also names the alternative workflow: diagnose_deploy first, then fix, then retry. This is exemplary usage guidance with clear exclusions and alternatives.

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

All Layero tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are distinct, but there's real confusion risk between the deploy-related set (cancel_deploy, retry_deploy, deploy_logs, diagnose_deploy) and the site-inspection set (site_status, read_site, site_issues, site_screenshot) where purposes overlap. compose_landing vs compose_landing_submit are differentiated mostly by an obscure note rather than naming. Several tools address similar concepts (landing composition, publishing, deploy) making agent misselection plausible.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use a clean verb_noun pattern (list_deploys, connect_domain, check_domain, publish_landing, read_site, rollback). However, conventions are mixed: some use compose/x/check/y (check_copy, check_domain, check_performance) while others use site_x (site_status, site_analytics, site_issues, site_screenshot) with inconsistent ordering. Descriptions mix English and Russian heavily, though that's content not naming.

Tool Count4/5

27 tools is a large but arguably justified surface for a full site-building/deploying/monitoring platform spanning composition, domain management, deploys, performance, analytics, and environment configuration. It sits slightly above what feels tight, but each tool has a defined role in the overall workflow.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full landing lifecycle: compose, publish, deploy, monitor, rollback, diagnose, and connect external resources (domain, analytics, integrations). Minor gaps: no explicit tool for site deletion/teardown, only read_site for editing with refactor_site being narrow, and no way to update an existing landing's text beyond refactor. Still, core CRUD and operational flows are covered.

Resources

Need Help?