EasyPanel MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_deployment

Deploy a Docker image to an existing EasyPanel service by providing project ID, service ID, image, and optional config.

Instructions

Create a new deployment in EasyPanel.

Args: project_id: Project ID service_id: Service ID image: Docker image to deploy config: Additional deployment configuration

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "service_id": "<service_id>",
      "image": "<image>"
    },
    "name": "create_deployment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`image`	Yes
`config`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`service_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates that a deployment is created. It does not mention side effects such as image pulling, deployment triggering, reversibility, or required permissions.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement. The args block is compact, though somewhat redundant with the input schema.

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?

For a create operation with no annotations and weak parameter documentation, the description under-specifies important context. It omits preconditions, validation behavior, what a deployment represents, and how this differs from deploy_service.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but most parameter descriptions merely restate the names ('Project ID', 'Service ID'). Only 'image: Docker image to deploy' and 'config: Additional deployment configuration' add marginal meaning; the structure of config and the origin or format of the IDs remain unclear.

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?

The description clearly identifies the operation as creating a deployment in EasyPanel, using a specific verb and resource. It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool deploy_service.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like deploy_service or get_deployment. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected workflow, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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