laravel-forge-readonly-mcp

Get Deployment Script

get_deployment_script

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the deployment script for a Laravel Forge site to view the commands executed on each deploy.

Instructions

The site's deployment script — the commands Forge runs on each deploy. Read-only: this cannot change the script.

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": {
      "server": "<server>",
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "get_deployment_script"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site`	Yes	Site id from list_sites.
`server`	Yes	Server id the site is on.
`organization`	No	Organisation slug. Optional when the server has a default configured.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description reinforces the read-only nature but adds no further behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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?

Two precise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns and that it is safe. It could mention return format but is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond mentioning 'site' implicitly, meeting baseline without extra value.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool returns the deployment script (specific verb and resource) and distinguishes it as read-only. It differentiates from siblings like get_deployment by specifying it retrieves the script commands.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Read-only: this cannot change the script,' indicating safe usage. However, it does not mention when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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