vercel_redeployTrigger a live deployment rebuild by providing the deployment ID and optional target. Initiates a new build for immediate redeployment.
Rebuild a deployment. Prompts (creates live deploys).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| deployment | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds a useful behavioral fact: it creates live deploys. However, the phrase 'Prompts' is vague, and the description does not clarify whether production deployments are affected or what happens to the existing deployment.
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 definition is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence is ambiguous and appears garbled ('Prompts (creates live deploys)'). It is concise but not clearly well-structured enough to earn a higher score.
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 destructive tool, the description is incomplete: it omits parameter semantics, usage conditions, and the distinction between redeploy and related tools. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing input and behavioral context.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or accepted format of 'deployment' or 'target'. The agent cannot tell whether 'deployment' expects an ID, URL, or name, nor what 'target' controls.
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 action ('Rebuild') and resource ('a deployment'), making the core purpose clear and distinct from list/inspect/log siblings. The parenthetical 'Prompts (creates live deploys)' is cryptic and prevents a higher score.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like vercel_deployments, vercel_inspect, or vercel_logs. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are provided; usage is only implied by the verb 'rebuild'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.