Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Lizard MCP

Lizard MCP

Official
by lizard-build
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Deploy template

template_deploy
Destructive

Deploy a template as a new project in a chosen workspace by supplying required placeholder values; inspect the resulting project before retrying any partial failure.

Instructions

Deploy a template as a new project in the chosen workspace. Read template_show first and supply required placeholderValues. Each call creates another project and may incur charges. Do not retry a partial failure blindly: inspect the returned project first.

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": {
      "template": "<template>",
      "projectName": "<projectName>",
      "workspaceId": "<workspaceId>"
    },
    "name": "template_deploy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
templateYesTemplate ID or slug
projectNameYes
workspaceIdYes
placeholderValuesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds cost/charge consequences, the non-idempotent 'each call creates another project' framing, and recovery advice for partial failures. That is substantive context beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and prerequisite, then the risk note, then the failure-handling caveat. Every sentence earns its place, though the phrasing is slightly terse in the retry clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, non-idempotent create with no output schema, the description covers the main risks and the pre-read step; the returned project is referenced for inspection. Remaining gap is naming/workspace parameter semantics rather than behavioral risk.

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 only 25%, so the description carries extra burden. It usefully notes that placeholderValues must be sourced from template_show and are required in practice, but projectName (100-char limit, naming rules) and workspaceId are left unexplained, so the gap is only partially closed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deploy a template as a new project') plus the scope ('in the chosen workspace'), which distinguishes it from siblings like project_create and template_show. An agent can tell immediately what this produces and where.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit prerequisite routing: 'Read template_show first and supply required placeholderValues', plus a warning that each call creates another project and may incur charges. It also tells the agent not to retry blindly on partial failure, which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs on a repeat-charge mutation.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools