Nosana MCP

Start deployment

start_deployment

Restart a draft or stopped deployment with its existing settings after user confirmation to spend credits and resume service.

Instructions

SPENDS CREDITS. Starts a DRAFT or STOPPED deployment again with its existing settings. Requires confirm=true after the user agreed.

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": {
      "deployment_id": "<deployment_id>"
    },
    "name": "start_deployment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`deployment_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that the operation SPENDS CREDITS and that user confirmation is required via confirm=true. These are meaningful side effects not visible in the schema or annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Two short, dense sentences with the credit warning front-loaded and the confirm requirement stated immediately. Every sentence adds essential information with no filler.

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?

The description covers the key preconditions: credit cost, required confirm, and eligible deployment states. With no output schema, it does not describe the response or whether the deployment start is asynchronous, but the operation is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a correctness blocker.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains confirm=true and implies deployment_id from 'a deployment', but it does not explicitly describe deployment_id's meaning or the effect of confirm=false. This is partial but minimally viable compensation for the undocumented schema.

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 description states a specific verb (Starts), a specific resource (a DRAFT or STOPPED deployment), and the exact behavior (again with its existing settings). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_deployment and stop_deployment without needing to inspect the schema.

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?

The description explicitly says the tool starts only DRAFT or STOPPED deployments and requires confirm=true after user agreement, giving a clear when-to-use condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the eligibility criteria make the usage context clear.

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

Deploy Server