Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
forge-mcp-server

forge-mcp-server

by bretterer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

update_deployment_script

Update a site's deployment script by providing the server ID, site ID, and new script content.

Instructions

Update the deployment script for a site

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "serverId": "<serverId>",
      "siteId": "<siteId>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "update_deployment_script"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteIdYesThe ID of the site
contentYesThe new deployment script content
serverIdYesThe ID of the server

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must compensate. It only states 'Update,' implying mutation, but omits side effects (e.g., overwrite entire script), auth requirements, or whether deployment is triggered. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no extraneous words. Efficient and to the point.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, no annotations, and minimal description. For a mutation tool with 3 required parameters, the description should explain return value, success/failure indicators, and potential side effects. Lacks completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not exceptional. Baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the action (update) and resource (deployment script for a site), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_deployment_script. However, it could be more specific about the scope of the update (e.g., full replacement).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_deployment_script for retrieval, deploy_site for execution). No prerequisites or context provided.

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