Retrieves the list of actions available for a specific deployment resource by resource ID, so you can identify permitted operations before acting.
Fetch available resource actions. Returns the complete list of available actions that can be performed on a given resource. GET /deployment/api/resources/{resourceId}/actions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resourceId | Yes | Resource 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 establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive GET operation. The description adds that it returns the complete list of available actions, but does not discuss pagination, filtering behavior, response shape, or any access constraints.
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-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence largely restates the first, but the endpoint adds useful context and the overall size is appropriate.
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 one-parameter read operation with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It could be stronger by clarifying the relationship to sibling action-listing tools or what the returned actions represent.
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%, and the single resourceId parameter is documented as a UUID path parameter in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond showing it in the endpoint path, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource: fetching available actions for a given resource. It is clear enough to distinguish this from the sibling that fetches a single action by action id, though it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives.
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 the required resourceId and the phrase 'on a given resource,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools such as deployment_get_resource_actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.