deploy_repository

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

The description discloses that the tool requires explicit confirmation, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure; it does not mention side effects, whether the command is destructive, or what happens on failure. The confirmation requirement is a useful addition but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loads the action. It earns its place by stating the core behavior and the confirmation requirement, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 that runs a configured command (likely a mutation with side effects), the description is thin. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, so the agent lacks information about return values, failure modes, or the nature of the deploy command. The confirmation requirement is helpful but insufficient for safe invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It does not explain what 'confirm' means beyond the schema's boolean type and default false, nor does it clarify the format or semantics of 'repositoryPath'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('the configured MCP_DEPLOY_COMMAND in a repository'), which clearly identifies the tool's action. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like commit_repository or create_pull_request, but the deploy command concept is distinct enough.

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 implies this tool is for deploying a repository via a configured command, and the confirmation requirement suggests it should be used when the user explicitly wants to deploy. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is reasonably clear.

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