deployment_historyReview recent deployments with status, commit, address, and failure details before redeploying, so you can avoid repeating an unchanged deployment failure.
Recent deploys, newest first: status, commit, address, and the full failure sentence in error. Read this before redeploying after a failure; an unchanged redeploy fails the same way.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many. Default 10. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: newest-first ordering and the fact that `error` carries the full failure sentence rather than a code. The warning that an unchanged redeploy reproduces the failure is real operational guidance not derivable from structured fields.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler. The return fields are front-loaded and the usage rule follows immediately, so the agent gets the essentials on first read.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and their ordering, covering most of what an agent needs for a read-only one-parameter tool. The gap is whether older history is retrievable past the 50-item limit — neither description nor schema says how to page further back.
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?
The single parameter has 100% schema coverage with 'How many. Default 10.', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'newest first' implies what the limit counts, but adds no bounds or paging information (max 50 is only in the schema).
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?
Names a specific resource (recent deploys) and enumerates what comes back (status, commit, address, error sentence), with ordering stated as newest first. It doesn't name the ambiguous sibling `deployment_status` to distinguish the pair, so an agent must infer that this is a history list versus a current-state check.
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?
Gives a clear conditional trigger: read this before redeploying after a failure, justified by 'an unchanged redeploy fails the same way.' It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. `logs` for deeper diagnostics) or exclusions, so it's clear context without full routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.