Browse available service templates from the Deployado marketplace, filtered by category such as databases, caches, or monitoring tools, to find services to deploy.
Browse available service templates from the Deployado marketplace (databases, caches, monitoring tools, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by category: database, cache, monitoring, etc. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect behavior are fully covered. The description adds only domain framing (databases, caches, monitoring tools); it says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or size of the catalog.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical examples earn their place by illustrating template scope. The trailing 'etc.' is slightly loose for a definition that could enumerate the catalog's categories precisely.
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 zero-required-parameter, read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and a fully described schema, the description is adequate but thin. It omits the return shape (since no output schema exists) and the link to deployado_install_service, which is the main reason an agent would call it.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the single optional 'category' parameter is already documented with an example value list. The description's examples ('databases, caches, monitoring tools') loosely echo those category values but add no new guidance, such as case sensitivity or what happens when omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Browse available service templates') and scopes it to 'the Deployado marketplace', which is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closely-named sibling deployado_list_services (installed services) or deployado_install_service (which presumably consumes these templates), so the sibling distinction is only implicit.
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?
The word 'Browse' and 'available' imply this is a discovery step preceding deployado_install_service, but no alternative or trigger condition is stated. An agent must infer the workflow (list templates -> install_service) rather than being routed to it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.