Cloud Run MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions that files must exist locally, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation (overwrites existing deployments), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens after deployment. For a deployment tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second provides crucial usage guidance. There's zero wasted verbiage.

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 this is a deployment tool (complex operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'deploy' entails (e.g., creates/updates a service), what happens on success/failure, or what the tool returns. For a tool that modifies cloud infrastructure, this leaves too many unknowns for safe agent 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that files are 'absolute file paths from the local filesystem.' This matches the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action ('Deploy local files to Cloud Run') and resource ('local files'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'deploy_file_contents' (which likely deploys content strings) and 'deploy_local_folder' (which deploys folders rather than individual files). The purpose is unambiguous and well-specified.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this tool if the files exists on the user local filesystem'), providing clear context for its application. This directly addresses the alternative scenario where files might not be local, helping the agent choose correctly among deployment options.

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