Cloud DevOps MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Assess Terraform Change

assess_terraform_change

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate Terraform/IaC release risk using plan evidence and governance facts such as rollback, peer review, and stateful impact before approving changes.

Instructions

Evaluate Terraform/IaC release risk using plan evidence plus change-governance facts such as rollback, peer review and stateful impact. Use this for overall change/release decisions; for security-only inspection of a raw Terraform plan, use review_terraform_security. It analyzes supplied evidence only and never applies a plan, changes infrastructure, or writes Terraform state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hasPeerReview`	No	Whether another qualified reviewer has reviewed the proposed change.
`hasRollbackPlan`	No	Whether a documented rollback or recovery path exists for this change.
`changedResources`	No	Infrastructure resource classes changed by the pull request or deployment.
`hasTerraformPlan`	No	Whether a Terraform plan artifact was generated and reviewed for this change.
`terraformPlanJson`	No	Optional raw Terraform plan JSON. When supplied, the server derives resource classes and evidence.
`includesIamChanges`	No	Whether the change adds, removes or modifies IAM permissions, roles or policies.
`includesPublicIngress`	No	Whether the change introduces or modifies internet-accessible ingress or public network exposure.
`modifiesStatefulResources`	No	Whether databases, persistent volumes or other stateful resources are changed or replaced.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`evidence`	Yes
`checklist`	Yes
`riskLevel`	Yes
`riskScore`	Yes
`uncertainties`	Yes
`changedResources`	Yes
`assessmentConfidence`	Yes
`recommendedReleasePath`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.14.0Oct 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / hasPeerReview / description

Added value: +"Whether another qualified reviewer has reviewed the proposed change."

addedInput schema / properties / hasRollbackPlan / description

Added value: +"Whether a documented rollback or recovery path exists for this change."

addedInput schema / properties / hasTerraformPlan / description

Added value: +"Whether a Terraform plan artifact was generated and reviewed for this change."

addedInput schema / properties / includesIamChanges / description

Added value: +"Whether the change adds, removes or modifies IAM permissions, roles or policies."

addedInput schema / properties / includesPublicIngress / description

Added value: +"Whether the change introduces or modifies internet-accessible ingress or public network exposure."

addedInput schema / properties / modifiesStatefulResources / description

Added value: +"Whether databases, persistent volumes or other stateful resources are changed or replaced."

First observedv0.4.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds meaningful nuance beyond them: it analyzes supplied evidence only and never applies a plan, changes infrastructure, or writes Terraform state, which clarifies it is a pure scoring/assessment operation. It does not describe latency or rate-limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero padding, with the core purpose front-loaded before the sibling routing and the behavioral boundary. Each sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter assessment tool with a full-coverage schema and an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, sibling disambiguation, and the read-only/no-side-effect boundary, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 100% and every parameter is self-documented, so the description owes no parameter detail; baseline 3 applies. It names some evidence categories (rollback, peer review, stateful impact) that map to parameters, but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already carries.

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?

States a specific verb (Evaluate) plus resource (Terraform/IaC release risk) and enumerates the evidence classes it consumes (plan evidence, rollback, peer review, stateful impact). It explicitly names the sibling review_terraform_security and the boundary between them, so an agent can differentiate without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('overall change/release decisions') and a named alternative with its own selecting condition ('for security-only inspection of a raw Terraform plan, use review_terraform_security'). Nothing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server