Preview which new and changed files a deploy will upload without making changes, and return the plan ID needed to deploy.
Show what a deploy would upload (new and changed files). Changes nothing. Returns a planId that deploy needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site name from sites.json (see list_sites) | |
| localDir | No | Local folder to deploy from / compare with. Defaults to the site's localDir. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'Changes nothing' declares the read-only, non-mutating nature, and it discloses a key output artifact (planId) despite there being no output schema. It omits auth/permission requirements and idempotency details, so it is not exhaustive.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The non-destructive guarantee and the deploy dependency are both stated immediately and each sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is compared, that nothing is mutated, and the planId return that deploy consumes. No meaningful gap remains.
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 both parameters (site, localDir) are already documented in the schema, including the defaulting behavior for localDir. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 and resource ('Show what a deploy would upload') plus the exact scope (new and changed files), which cleanly separates it from siblings like deploy, preview_restore, and check_server_changes. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.
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 line 'Returns a planId that deploy needs' tells the agent this is a prerequisite step that feeds deploy, which is strong implied usage guidance. It stops short of an explicit when/when-not rule or naming an alternative it should not be used in place of.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.