Skip to main content
Glama
vish288

mcp-argocd

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Argocd Rollback Application

argocd_rollback_application
Destructive

Roll back an Argo CD application to a prior deployment history entry. Destructive; re-applies an old revision, auto-sync blocks it, and Git must be fixed afterward.

Instructions

Roll back to a prior deployment history entry. destructive.

Argo CD refuses a rollback while auto-sync is on, so this pre-reads the app and returns an actionable error first. A rollback re-applies an old revision, so fix Git afterward.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesApplication name; accepts namespace/name for apps-in-any-namespace
waitNoWait for the operation to finish
pruneNoPrune resources during rollback
dry_runNoPreview only
projectNoProject; with it a missing app is 404 and a wrong-project app is 403
history_idYesstatus.history id to roll back to
app_namespaceNoOverride appNamespace; defaults to ARGOCD_APP_NAMESPACE
timeout_secondsNoWait timeout in seconds

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses that the tool pre-reads the app and returns an actionable error before failing, and warns that Git is left diverged after the re-apply. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent can't get from the annotations or schema.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and its destructive nature. Each sentence earns its place by adding a distinct constraint or warning.

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 destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and a fully documented 8-param schema, the description covers the key failure mode and side effect. It omits what a successful rollback returns, but with a rich schema and safety annotations this is a minor gap.

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 8 parameters (including wait, prune, dry_run, project, timeout_seconds) are already documented in the schema. The description implies the history_id target but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb+resource: 'roll back to a prior deployment history entry' precisely names the action and the target, with 'destructive' flagged up front. It is distinguishable from siblings like sync_application conceptually, but no sibling is named to make the routing explicit.

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?

Provides a real precondition/exclusion: rollback is refused while auto-sync is on, and gives the post-rollback remedy ('fix Git afterward'). Clear context, though it never names an alternative tool for the auto-sync case, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools