Launch a new SkyPilot service from a task YAML string with replicas and readiness probes, returning a request ID to track the deployment.
Launch a new service. Accepts a SkyPilot task YAML string with a service section defining replicas, readiness probe, etc. Returns a request_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_yaml | Yes | ||
| service_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate an open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it returns a request_id, which is useful behavioral context. It does not, however, disclose side effects, resource creation implications, or authentication needs beyond what annotations cover.
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?
The description is two sentences and front-loads the primary action. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary detail, though the second sentence could be slightly more informative about the return value's purpose.
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?
Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values in detail, but it does provide the request_id. However, with 0% schema coverage for two required parameters, the description is insufficient to fully understand how to properly provide task_yaml and service_name.
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 0%, meaning neither parameter has a description in the schema. The description mentions task_yaml and service_name, providing minimal semantics for task_yaml but none for service_name. This does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Launch a new service') and clarifies the expected input format (a SkyPilot task YAML string with a service section). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool skypilot_serve_update, but the word 'new' implies the distinction.
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?
Usage is implied: use this to launch a new service. However, the description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like skypilot_serve_update or skypilot_local_up, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.