Deploy a Scalix Function — serverless, per-request billed, running in isolated microVMs — from a container image. Invoke it with scalix_fn_invoke once deployed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Function name | |
| image | Yes | Container image reference | |
| runtime | No | Runtime — `node` or `python` (exactly what the functions orchestrator accepts) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / runtime / descriptionPrevious value: -"Runtime (e.g., nodejs20, python3.12)"New value: +"Runtime — `node` or `python` (exactly what the functions orchestrator accepts)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description goes beyond annotations by adding non-obvious behavior: the resulting artifact is serverless, billed per request, isolated in microVMs, and follows a deploy-then-invoke lifecycle. No annotation contradiction.
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 tight, waste-free sentences. The first front-loads the verb and resource, inserts the execution model as a parenthetical, and ends with the precise source ('from a container image'). The second sentence earns its place by naming the exact next step.
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 deploy tool with three params, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essentials: what is created, from what, and what to do once deployed. A note on return/status value would be a minor addition; the lifecycle hint largely compensates.
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 description coverage is 100% — all three parameters (name, image, runtime) are already described, with runtime detailing accepted values. The description text only reinforces the image parameter via 'from a container image'; it adds no meaningful semantics beyond an already-complete schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description states a specific verb+resource: 'Deploy a Scalix Function — serverless, per-request billed, running in isolated microVMs — from a container image.' The capital-F 'Function' plus the defining traits (serverless, per-request billing, microVM isolation) clearly differentiate it from siblings like scalix_run_deploy, scalix_fn_invoke, and scalix_fn_list.
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?
Provides clear post-deployment context ('Invoke it with scalix_fn_invoke once deployed') but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance against similar deployment tools such as scalix_run_deploy or scalix_build_create. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
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.
Tools are grouped by service prefix and generally target distinct resources/actions. A few execution surfaces could be confused (sandbox_run vs computer_exec vs fn_invoke; build_create vs fn_deploy vs run_deploy), and storage_list is overloaded for both buckets and objects, but descriptions clarify the boundaries well.
The scalix_ prefix plus snake_case is used throughout, and most tools follow <service>_<verb>_<noun>. Minor deviations like scalix_search, scalix_status, and scalix_usage omit a service-domain qualifier, but the overall pattern is predictable and easy to navigate.
53 tools is a very large surface. While the server covers a broad multi-service cloud platform, the count falls well beyond the 25+ threshold and will likely feel overwhelming; many service areas could reasonably be split into separate servers or trimmed.
Several service lifecycles have obvious gaps: the KV store has get/list/set but no delete, storage has upload/download/list but no delete for objects or buckets, functions have deploy/list/invoke but no delete/update, and cron has create but no list/delete. These missing operations create dead ends for agents managing common resources.