action1-mcp-server

Deploy specific updates to an endpoint

action1_deploy_update

Destructive

Deploy specified package updates to an endpoint or endpoint group, with dry-run preview and reboot policy controls.

Instructions

Deploy one or more updates (by package id) via the deploy_update template.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Friendly action name.
`org_id`	No	Org UUID.
`confirm`	No	Required to execute. Exact string "YES".
`dry_run`	No	Default true (preview). Set false to execute.
`updates`	Yes	Updates to deploy.
`endpoint_id`	Yes	Endpoint UUID, or Group ID when target_type='EndpointGroup'.
`target_type`	No	Endpoint (default) or EndpointGroup for fan-out.
`reboot_after`	No	Reboot policy after deploy.
`display_summary`	No	Optional console summary.
`response_format`	No	Output format. Default markdown.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 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"

removedInput schema / properties / updates / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

changedInput schema / properties / updates / items / properties / version / description

Previous value: -"Target version (empty string for latest)."New value: +"Version to deploy, as listed by the missing-update or vulnerability tools (repository packages list 'Latest'). Passed through unchanged; see docs/GOTCHAS.md."

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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them — it does not disclose the two-step confirm="YES" gate, the dry_run default of true (preview), reboot_after behavior, or group fan-out risk when target_type is EndpointGroup.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient but so terse that it omits information an agent needs, sitting just short of the sweet spot.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a destructive, non-idempotent, 10-parameter mutation tool with an output schema. The description omits the critical invocation protocol (confirm string, dry_run preview default) and the endpoint-vs-group targeting distinction, so it is not complete enough for safe first-call behavior.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in structured data (package_id source, version pass-through, target_type, reboot_after, response_format). The description only restates 'by package id', adding no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 updates by package id. An agent can tell this is a deployment action rather than a listing action. However, it does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling action1_deploy_package, leaving the boundary between 'deploy updates' and 'deploy package' ambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus action1_deploy_package, action1_run_script, or action1_list_missing_updates, and no statement of prerequisites. The agent must infer from the schema that a confirm token and dry_run flag exist.

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

Deploy Server