rollbackDeployRevert an app to an earlier deployment by restarting all services, including the database, using a specific deploy ID and the original image from the registry.
Needs a running, build-backed app whose target image is still in the registry. Restarts every service in the instance, database included.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| appSlug | Yes | ||
| deployId | Yes | ||
| workspaceSlug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses that the operation restarts every service, including the database, which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also implies a change to the deployed image. However, it does not mention potential downtime or whether a new deploy record is created, leaving some behavioral details unspecified.
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 two sentences long, directly states the precondition and the action, and contains no filler or redundant information. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.
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?
While the description gives the core action and a key precondition, it lacks details about the parameters (especially deployId and env) and any output or side effects beyond restarting services. For an agent to use the tool correctly, it would need to know that deployId likely refers to the target deployment to roll back to, which is not explicitly stated.
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?
The schema provides no descriptions for the five parameters, and the description does not explain what workspaceSlug, appSlug, deployId, env, or region represent. The term 'deployId' is mentioned indirectly via 'target image' but never explicitly defined, leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings.
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 title 'Rollback Deploy' and description 'Restarts every service in the instance' clearly state the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling deploy-related tools like redeployApp or createAppDeploy. The precondition about the target image being in the registry further clarifies its specific purpose.
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 a precondition ('Needs a running, build-backed app whose target image is still in the registry') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like redeployApp or deployApp. It implies a rollback scenario but lacks direct guidance on choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.