deployAppDeploy a cloud application from a Git repository or direct upload, specifying region, resources, and environment settings for immediate hosting.
Deploy an app from a git repository or upload
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestBody | No | The JSON request body. | |
| workspaceSlug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutating nature. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether it triggers a build, overwrites existing deployments, or has specific permission requirements. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate because it adds minimal value beyond the annotation.
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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.
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 tool with a highly nested schema, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description is extremely sparse. It omits essential details about source types (git vs upload vs catalog), required fields, return values, and potential side effects, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
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 only 50%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameters. The schema has a complex structure with nested objects and oneOf source types, but the tool description adds no meaning to these fields, failing to compensate for the schema's low coverage.
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 'Deploy' and resource 'app', and identifies two sources (git repository or upload). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like createAppDeploy or redeployApp, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createAppDeploy, redeployApp, or updateApp. No conditions, exclusions, or preferred contexts are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.