action1-mcp-server

Deploy a software package

action1_deploy_package

Destructive

Deploys software packages to endpoints or endpoint groups via the deploy_package template; defaults to a preview and requires confirmation to execute.

Instructions

Deploy software via the deploy_package template. Use action1_get_action_template for the params schema.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Friendly action name.
`org_id`	No	Org UUID.
`params`	Yes	Template params for deploy_package.
`confirm`	No	Required to execute. Exact string "YES".
`dry_run`	No	Default true (preview). Set false to execute.
`endpoint_id`	Yes	Endpoint UUID, or Group ID when target_type='EndpointGroup'.
`target_type`	No	Endpoint (default) or EndpointGroup for fan-out.
`response_format`	No	Output format. Default markdown.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / properties / params / propertyNames
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```

First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the risk profile is known. The description adds that execution is template-driven and that params must be sourced externally, but never reinforces the dry_run-preview / confirm="YES" gate that matters most for a destructive action. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the prerequisite. Both sentences earn their place.

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

Completeness3/5

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 no explanation, and the schema fully documents the gating parameters. But for an 8-parameter, destructive, non-idempotent fan-out-capable tool, two sentences leave the agent without the blast-radius framing (that dry_run defaults to true and confirm is required to actually execute) that would belong in prose rather than buried in field descriptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, and the description exceeds it by explaining the one genuinely opaque parameter: 'params' is a free-form object (additionalProperties: {}) whose shape is not in the schema and must be fetched via action1_get_action_template. That is real added meaning for an undocumented nested object.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Deploy software') and pins the mechanism ('via the deploy_package template'). It does not distinguish this from near-neighbors like action1_deploy_update or action1_run_script, so an agent still has to infer which deployment path applies.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The second sentence gives a concrete prerequisite workflow: call action1_get_action_template to obtain the params schema. That is useful context, but it is a how-to, not a when-to-use — no condition selects this over deploy_update, run_script, or create_package, and no exclusions are stated.

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

Deploy Server