Retrieve recent deployments with verification state and verdict to check if a production release cleared or failed, and inspect evidence for failed releases.
Recent deployments with their verification state and verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation and mentions returned fields, but does not state whether it is read-only, how results are sorted, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the resource and returned data, though it is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence.
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?
Given the simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core return content but omits the limit parameter semantics and any behavioral context. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent to know how to call it optimally.
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 0%, and the description does not mention the limit parameter at all. The schema supplies a default, maximum, and minimum, but the description adds no meaning beyond that, failing to compensate for the 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 identifies the resource (deployments) and the returned data (verification state and verdict), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly state the verb 'list' or differentiate from siblings like list_late_regressions, so an agent must infer from the tool name.
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 alternatives such as list_late_regressions or get_verification. Usage is only implied by the description's focus on recent deployments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.