dpanel_compose_deployDeploy or update Docker Compose projects by ID, optionally targeting specific services or passing environment variables to apply changes.
部署/更新 compose 项目。id 为项目 id。deploy_service_name 可指定只部署部分服务。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| environment | No | ||
| remove_orphans | No | ||
| deploy_service_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'deploy/update' but does not disclose what gets replaced/destroyed, whether existing containers are recreated, what remove_orphans does, or any permission/auth requirements. This is thin for a mutating operation with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Three short clauses, no waste, with the core action front-loaded before the parameter clarifications. Efficiently structured, though it trades brevity against completeness.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a four-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits environment and remove_orphans semantics and any behavioral detail. It is under-specified for the tool's complexity.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains id ('项目 id') and deploy_service_name (partial-service deployment), but leaves environment and remove_orphans completely undocumented in both schema and description. Two of four parameters gain meaning, so it only partially fills the gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource combination ('部署/更新 compose 项目' - deploy/update compose project), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like dpanel_compose_create and dpanel_compose_destroy. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings the way a 5 would.
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?
The description notes that deploy_service_name can deploy only part of the services, which is a useful usage hint, but it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance or preconditions relative to dpanel_compose_create or dpanel_compose_container_ctrl. Usage is only weakly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.