Validate blueprint YAML before deployment and preview the resources it would create. Returns validation results so you can catch configuration errors without deploying.
Validate a Deployado blueprint YAML without deploying it. Returns validation results and a preview of what would be created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Blueprint YAML content to validate |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes genuine extra context: no deployment occurs and the caller gets back a preview of what would be created, which is exactly what an agent needs to know before trusting a dry run. A 4 because it adds value beyond annotations but says nothing about error/failure semantics.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the crucial 'without deploying' constraint, followed by the return value. No filler.
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 single-parameter, non-destructive validation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, that it is safe, and roughly what comes back (validation results plus a creation preview). Slightly incomplete in not describing failure behavior or what the preview contains.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'content'. The description repeats the format (YAML blueprint) without adding syntax, sizing, or example guidance — 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?
States a specific verb+resource (validate a blueprint YAML) and adds a key qualifier, 'without deploying it,' which implicitly distinguishes it from deployado_deploy_blueprint. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
'Without deploying it' implies this is the dry-run/pre-flight step before deploy_blueprint, which is useful, but the description never states when to prefer this over deploying directly or what to do with a failed validation. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.