spinnaker-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List deployment strategies

list_strategies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists all deployment strategy configurations for a Spinnaker application, returning JSON so you can find available red/black, rolling, or canary strategies before saving or modifying one.

Instructions

List all deployment strategy configurations for a Spinnaker application. Use this to discover available strategies (e.g., red/black, rolling, canary) before saving or modifying one. Returns JSON array of strategy configuration objects.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "application": "<application>"
    },
    "name": "list_strategies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`application`	Yes	Application name as registered in Spinnaker

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No	Number of records in items.
`items`	No	The records, when Gate answered with a list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.1Nov 1, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "The Gate response. A JSON object from Gate comes back as is; a JSON array comes back as {items, count}.",
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of records in items.",
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "description": "The records, when Gate answered with a list.",
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Apr 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds that the result is a JSON array of strategy configuration objects, but says nothing about permissions/authentication, behavior for an unknown application, or paging, so it adds only modest value.

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?

It uses three short sentences, and it front-loads the verb and resource ahead of the use case and return shape. Every sentence carries information, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the definition covers purpose, timing and return type. The only minor gap is behavior on a nonexistent or unauthorized application, which the description does not address.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ("Application name as registered in Spinnaker"), which already carries the semantics. The phrase "for a Spinnaker application" in the description only reinforces this and adds no format or example beyond the schema, so this is baseline territory.

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 definition opens with a specific verb and resource ("List all deployment strategy configurations") and scopes it to a Spinnaker application. It then gives concrete examples of what a strategy is (red/black, rolling, canary), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. No sibling in the list covers deployment strategies, so ambiguity is low.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states a clear use case: discover available strategies before saving or modifying one, which tells the agent where this fits in a read-then-write workflow. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but no obvious alternative exists among the siblings.

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