Retrieve all available actions for a specific deployment by deployment ID, so you can identify which operations can be performed on it.
Fetch deployment available actions. Returns the complete list of available actions that can be performed on a given deployment. GET /deployment/api/deployments/{deploymentId}/actions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deploymentId | Yes | Deployment ID (path) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the result is a 'complete list' and includes the underlying GET endpoint, but does not disclose pagination, response shape, or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the core purpose before explaining the return and endpoint. The endpoint line duplicates the annotation title and 'Fetch ... Returns the complete list' is slightly repetitive, but the overall structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description gives enough context to select and call it. It does not explain response structure or pagination, but no output schema exists and annotations already establish the safety profile.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with deploymentId documented as 'Deployment ID (path).' The description does not add format, UUID, or example details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('deployment available actions'), and scope ('for a given deployment'), so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as deployment_get_deployment_action or deployment_get_resource_actions, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by 'complete list of available actions that can be performed on a given deployment,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar siblings like deployment_get_deployment_action or deployment_get_resource_actions. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.