Deploy updates to an existing Laravel installation by clearing and warming configuration, route, and view caches to apply code changes without stale cache.
Deploy updates to an existing Laravel installation: clears and warms config, route, and view caches
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_root | Yes | Laravel project directory path (e.g. 'laravel/my-app') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the cache operations, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions required, whether the site goes briefly offline, whether it touches the filesystem or runs artisan, what failure looks like, or whether the action is reversible.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operative detail (which caches) comes after the colon. Efficient, though it could be tightened by not calling cache work 'deploy updates'.
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?
For a single-parameter mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what but leaves out risk, preconditions, and outcome. Adequate to invoke, insufficient to invoke confidently.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents project_root with an example. The description adds no path resolution rules, multi-site behavior, or validation hints beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (deploy) and resource (Laravel installation) and then names the concrete operations performed (config/route/view cache clear and warm). Slightly weakened by 'deploy updates' overstating scope versus what is then described, but an agent can still identify it against siblings like setup_laravel_hosting or get_laravel_status.
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?
No statement of when to call this versus get_laravel_status (check first?), setup_laravel_hosting (install), or update_git_repo (pull code). No prerequisites, no mention that the app should already exist, and no exclusions for environments where cache clearing is unsafe.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.