vercel-mcp-pro

list_deployment_files

Retrieve the file tree of a Vercel deployment by providing its ID. Quickly inspect deployment structure without manual browsing.

Instructions

List the file tree of a deployment.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "list_deployment_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Deployment id (dpl_...).
`teamId`	No	Team ID to scope the request. Falls back to VERCEL_TEAM_ID when omitted.
`slug`	No	Team slug to scope the request (alternative to teamId).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 11, 2026

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 carries full burden. Only says 'List' which implies read-only, but doesn't disclose permissions, pagination, or other behavioral traits beyond the verb.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Appropriate length for a simple tool.

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 and no annotations; description is minimal. For a tool listing files, it lacks context on output format (e.g., recursive?, full paths?) and required permissions.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond schema.

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 'List the file tree of a deployment' which is specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_deployment_file_contents' through verb choice, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 over alternatives like 'get_deployment_file_contents' or other listing tools. Only states what it does, not when or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server