rancher-mcp-server

redeploy_workload

Trigger a rolling redeploy of a workload to update pods without downtime, using the equivalent of the Rancher UI Redeploy button.

Instructions

Trigger a rolling redeploy of a workload (equivalent to the Rancher UI 'Redeploy' button). Requires RANCHER_MCP_ALLOW_WRITE=true.

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>",
      "workload_id": "<workload_id>"
    },
    "name": "redeploy_workload"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`workload_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a write operation via the requirment, but does not detail effects like whether the redeploy is disruptive, asynchronous, or what happens to existing pods.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant words. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining the action and stating a prerequisite.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description's minimalism is partially forgivable. However, it lacks context on the redeploy process (e.g., synchronous/asynchronous, what the return indicates), which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but provides no information about the two required parameters (project_id, workload_id), leaving their semantics entirely to the parameter names.

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 states the verb 'Trigger a rolling redeploy' and the resource 'workload', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like scale_workload or list_workloads by specifying the action is equivalent to the Rancher UI 'Redeploy' button.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description includes a precondition 'Requires RANCHER_MCP_ALLOW_WRITE=true', but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scale_workload or diagnose_workload.

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

Deploy Server