EasyPanel MCP Server

by dannymaaz

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Hybrid

deploy_service

Deploy or redeploy a service to apply latest changes. Pulls the newest source/image and restarts the service.

Instructions

Deploy / redeploy a service (pulls the latest source/image and restarts).

Args: service_id: Service ID

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": {
      "service_id": "<service_id>"
    },
    "name": "deploy_service"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: pulling the latest source/image and restarting the service. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, downtime, or whether this replaces the running deployment, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded, but the 'Args: service_id: Service ID' line is redundant with the input schema and does not earn its place. Still, it is not verbose or hard to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic operation and parameter. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over restart_service or update_service, and it does not mention prerequisites. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 should compensate, but it only repeats what the schema already shows: service_id is a Service ID. It adds no extra meaning about where to find the ID, format expectations, or how it is used in the deployment.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Deploy / redeploy a service', and adds a distinctive mechanism ('pulls the latest source/image and restarts'). This clearly separates it from siblings like restart_service, which would not pull latest source/image.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when deploying or redeploying a service, including fetching latest source/image and restarting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the parenthetical behavior makes the primary use case clear.

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