Skip to main content
Glama

Should I Deploy

should_i_deploy
Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate a deployment candidate against security graph exposure risk to get an allow, warn, or block decision for pre-deployment gating.

Instructions

Return an allow / warn / block deploy decision from graph exposure risk.

    Resolves a deployment candidate against the latest security-graph
    snapshot, ranks its reachable ExposurePaths by risk score, and maps the
    top score to a gate decision using the warn/block thresholds.

    Args:
        candidate: Package, resource, CVE, graph node ID, or deployment
            label to evaluate.
        tenant_id: Tenant whose graph snapshot to read (default ``default``).
        scan_id: Specific graph scan ID; omit to use the latest snapshot.
        limit: Maximum matched exposure paths to return (1-25).
        warn_risk: Risk score at or above which the decision becomes warn.
        block_risk: Risk score at or above which the decision becomes block.

    Returns:
        JSON with the ``decision`` (allow/warn/block), the driving risk
        score, and the ranked exposure paths behind it.

    Call this as a pre-deployment gate to get a single machine-readable
    verdict instead of interpreting raw findings.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum matched exposure paths to return.
scan_idNoOptional graph scan ID. Omit to use the latest snapshot.
candidateYesCandidate package, resource, CVE, node ID, or deployment label to evaluate.
tenant_idNoTenant ID for the graph snapshot. Defaults to 'default'.default
warn_riskNoRisk score at or above which the decision becomes warn.
block_riskNoRisk score at or above which the decision becomes block.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable detail: it resolves against the latest snapshot, ranks ExposurePaths by risk, and maps to a gate decision using thresholds. This explains the algorithm and usage of parameters like scan_id and thresholds.

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?

The description is well-structured with a summary, detailed Args section, Returns description, and usage note. Every sentence adds value. It is not overly long given the 6 parameters and output explanation.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers input parameters, the internal process, and output structure. It explains the return JSON includes decision, risk score, and ranked paths. This is complete for a pre-deployment gate tool with an existing output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning: it explains candidate can be a package, resource, CVE, node ID, or deployment label; tenant_id defaults to 'default'; scan_id omitted uses latest snapshot; limit bounds and defaults; warn_risk and block_risk thresholds. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns an allow/warn/block deploy decision based on graph exposure risk. It specifies the verb 'Return', the resource 'deploy decision', and differentiates from sibling tools like exposure_paths or blast_radius by focusing on a pre-deployment gate verdict.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly calls this a 'pre-deployment gate' and recommends using it to get a 'single machine-readable verdict instead of interpreting raw findings.' While it doesn't name specific sibling tools, it provides clear context for when to use this tool.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/msaad00/agent-bom'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server