Replit MCP Server

get_deployment

Retrieve deployment details for a Replit project to monitor status, access URLs, and manage live applications.

Instructions

Get deployment information for a repl

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_deployment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`replId`	No	Optional repl ID (uses active repl if not specified)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns structured data, handles errors, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, earning the highest score for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral aspects or usage context, making it incomplete for optimal agent operation, though not critically deficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'replId' documented as optional and defaulting to the active repl. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a 'repl' is or clarifying the deployment context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('deployment information for a repl'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_repl_details' or 'get_repl_by_url', which might also provide deployment-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_repl_details' or 'create_deployment'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a deployment must exist, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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