abort_deployDiscard a staging session and its scratch dir. Live site is untouched. Returns immediately; cleanup is best-effort and the sweeper will retry if it fails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deployId | Yes | Session id to abort. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| deployId | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds key behavioral details: the action is not synchronous ('returns immediately'), cleanup is best-effort, and the sweeper will retry on failure. This provides useful transparency.
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?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, behavior, and effects. It could mention possible errors or prerequisites, but overall it is adequate for this simple tool.
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% for the single parameter 'deployId', which has a schema description. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.
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 clearly specifies the verb 'Discard' and the resource 'a staging session and its scratch dir.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like commit_deploy or deploy_site by focusing on aborting a session.
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 states that the live site is untouched, implying it's safe to use without affecting production. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action—deploy, file, domain, snapshot, form, analytics—and the descriptions carefully clarify overlap (e.g., deploy_site vs update_site vs begin_deploy). A few pairs like read_file/read_source_file or list_file_hashes/list_source_files could be confused, but the pattern is clear enough to avoid misselection.
Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, list_, get_, read_, update_, delete_, verify_, etc.), with singular verbs for single resources and plural verbs for batches. This makes the surface highly predictable.
39 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped surface and many could be consolidated (e.g., read_file/read_files/read_source_file/read_source_files, or the multiple deploy entry points). The broad domain explains some of the count, but the set feels bloated and will slow tool selection.
The core deploy lifecycle is well covered: create/read/update/delete sites, patch files, manage custom domains, and configure forms. However, there are notable gaps—snapshots can be created and listed but not restored or deleted, and there is no explicit rollback-to-previous-deploy mechanism, which are common expectations for a deployment platform.