Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
antideploy-mcp

antideploy-mcp

Official
by antideploy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Deploy the project

deploy
Destructive

Package a project directory and publish it to Antideploy with environment variables, excluding .env files, node_modules, and build output; returns a task ID for status polling.

Instructions

Package a project directory and deploy it. Sends the whole directory, not just an entry point: a deploy containing one file builds successfully and then serves a page whose assets all 404. Returns a taskId to poll with deployment_status. A .env file is never uploaded, and neither are node_modules, build output, private keys or Python virtualenvs; the result names any .env files that were left out. The application's variables come from set_env, set_env_from_file or the env argument here, and the platform sets the database, storage, sign-in and email ones itself. The folder must be linked to an application (create_application) unless this server has a project key. When it succeeds, tell the user where it is live and on which account.

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": "deploy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
envNoVariables to store with this deploy. Write-only; never readable back.
forceNoRebuild even when the content is byte-for-byte identical to the last deploy.
directoryNoProject directory. Defaults to the working directory of this server.
applicationIdNoDeploy to this application instead of the one the folder is linked to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only give openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds substantial context beyond that — upload exclusions (.env, node_modules, build output, private keys, virtualenvs), the single-file/assets-404 failure mode, async behavior via taskId, and the note that the result names skipped .env files. It never explains why it is destructive (that the existing live deployment is replaced), which is the one behavioral gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and dense with useful constraints; nearly every sentence carries information. The closing instruction ("tell the user where it is live and on which account") is agent-behavior guidance rather than tool semantics, a minor off-domain addition in an otherwise tight paragraph.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the async taskId return and the polling sibling, plus upload exclusions and linking prerequisites. The missing piece is what happens to the previously live deployment on success, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-tool meaning for `env` (variables come from set_env/set_env_from_file or here, and platform-managed ones are set automatically) that the schema does not convey. `force` and `directory` are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Package a project directory and deploy it") and immediately clarifies scope: the whole directory is uploaded, not an entry point. It names the sibling to poll (deployment_status) and the sibling needed for prerequisites (create_application), so an agent can distinguish it from redeploy and the env-setting tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides real preconditions (folder must be linked via create_application unless a project key exists) and routes env configuration to set_env/set_env_from_file or the env argument. What it lacks is an explicit deploy-vs-redeploy distinction, which is the most likely sibling confusion given redeploy exists.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools