RunWhen Platform MCP

Deploy Registry Codebundle

deploy_registry_codebundle

Deploy a pre-built registry codebundle as an SLX to a workspace using its codecollection repo. Find the codebundle first with search_registry and get_registry_codebundle.

Instructions

Deploy a registry codebundle as an SLX to a workspace.

Unlike commit_slx (which embeds inline scripts via the Tool Builder codebundle), this deploys a pre-built codebundle from its own codecollection repository. The runbook.robot / sli.robot live in the codebundle's git repo — no inline script is needed.

Use search_registry + get_registry_codebundle to find the right codebundle, then call this tool with the values from the registry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No	Git branch/tag for the codecollection.	main
`data`	No	'logs-bulk', 'config', or 'logs-stacktrace'.	logs-bulk
`tags`	No	Resource tags ({name, value} dicts).
`alias`	Yes	Human-readable display name (e.g. 'Namespace Health').
`access`	No	'read-only' or 'read-write'.	read-only
`branch`	No	Workspace config branch.	main
`owners`	No	Owner emails (defaults to current user).
`location`	Yes	Runner location (use get_workspace_locations).
`repo_url`	Yes	Git URL of the codecollection.
`slx_name`	Yes	Short SLX name (lowercase-kebab-case).
`hierarchy`	No	Tag names for hierarchical grouping.
`image_url`	No	Icon URL for the SLX.
`statement`	Yes	SLX statement (e.g. 'All pods should be running').
`deploy_sli`	No	Also deploy the SLI (health indicator).
`config_vars`	No	Codebundle config variables.
`secret_vars`	No	Secret mappings (e.g. {'kubeconfig': 'kubeconfig'}).
`resource_path`	No	Resource path for search indexing.
`commit_message`	No	Custom commit message.
`deploy_runbook`	No	Deploy the runbook (task).
`workspace_name`	Yes	Target workspace (e.g. 't-oncall').
`codebundle_path`	Yes	Path to codebundle dir (e.g. 'codebundles/k8s-namespace-healthcheck').
`sli_description`	No	Description for the SLI metric.
`sli_interval_seconds`	No	SLI run interval in seconds.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the deployment mechanism (runbook.robot/sli.robot live in the codebundle's git repo, no inline script), which is non-obvious context beyond the schema. However, it omits key behavioral traits for a mutating deployment tool: required permissions, whether the deploy commits to workspace config, and side effects of the deploy_runbook/deploy_sli toggles.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs with zero filler: purpose first, differentiation second, workflow third. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex 23-parameter mutation with an output schema available, the description covers purpose, the sibling distinction, and the discovery workflow adequately, and need not explain return values. It stops short of describing deployment side effects, which matters given the absence of annotations.

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 all 23 parameters are already self-documenting. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond pointing the agent to the registry as the source of values, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Deploy a registry codebundle as an SLX to a workspace') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling commit_slx by contrasting the deployment mechanism (pre-built codecollection repo vs inline Tool Builder scripts). An agent can select this tool over commit_slx without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It names the alternative ('Unlike commit_slx...'), states the distinguishing condition, and provides a concrete pre-call workflow: 'Use search_registry + get_registry_codebundle to find the right codebundle, then call this tool with the values from the registry.' This is explicit when-to-use and how-to-source-inputs guidance.

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

Deploy Server