vercel-deployment-mcp

List deployments

list_deployments

Read-onlyIdempotent

List recent Vercel deployments, filtered by project ID and deployment state (READY, BUILDING, ERROR), to monitor build success and failures.

Instructions

List recent deployments, optionally filtered by project ID and state (e.g. BUILDING, ERROR, READY).

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": "list_deployments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results (default 20)
`state`	No	Comma-separated states, e.g. READY,ERROR
`projectId`	No	Limit to one project

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`receipt`	Yes
`pageCount`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minor context like 'recent' (implying ordering) but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists optional filters without unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool with a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient. The minor ambiguity of 'recent' is not critical to understanding the tool's function.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds example state values (BUILDING, ERROR, READY) that complement the schema's example, but this is minimal added value.

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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (deployments), and the optional filters (project ID, state) are specified. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like get_deployment and list_projects.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The sibling names hint at distinctions, but the description does not state them.

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

Deploy Server