Deploy a project directory to Netlify via the deploy-site operation, using a site ID or linking an existing site so the agent updates the intended site instead of creating a new one.
Select and run one of the following Netlify write operations deploy-site
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selectSchema | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / selectSchema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / selectSchema / properties / params / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description restates only 'write operations' and adds no behavioral context such as what a deploy overwrites, auth requirements, or side effects on the live site.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, so there is no padding, but the single sentence is awkwardly truncated and reads as an incomplete template ('one of the following ... deploy-site'). Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.
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?
For a destructive, non-idempotent deploy tool with a required nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent to infer the entire invocation contract (site linkage, deploy directory semantics, effects) from the schema alone.
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?
Reported schema description coverage is 0% at the top level, and the description mentions no parameters at all. The nested siteId/deployDirectory fields do carry their own descriptions, but the tool description adds nothing to clarify the operation/params envelope an agent must construct.
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?
The description identifies a Netlify write operation and names 'deploy-site', so the resource and action are inferable. But the phrasing is garbled ('Select and run one of the following Netlify write operations deploy-site') and it does not cleanly distinguish itself from the many sibling reader/updater tools of the same shape.
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?
It says 'select and run' but only one operation (deploy-site) exists, so there is effectively no selection guidance. Nothing states when to use this deployer versus the deploy reader or the other updater tools, and no prerequisites (linking a site, permissions) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.