Roll a Scalix Run service back to an earlier revision — omit 'revision' to return to the immediately previous one. Traffic switches to the target revision; the replaced revision is kept and can be redeployed later. Use scalix_run_list to see services and their current revisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Service ID (from scalix_run_list) | |
| revision | No | Revision number to roll back to; omit for the immediately previous revision |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Service ID"New value: +"Service ID (from scalix_run_list)"Input schema / properties / revision / descriptionPrevious value: -"Target revision number (defaults to previous)"New value: +"Revision number to roll back to; omit for the immediately previous revision"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses meaningful side effects beyond annotations: 'Traffic switches to the target revision; the replaced revision is kept and can be redeployed later.' This explains non-destructive behavior and state changes, complementing the destructiveHint=false annotation without 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?
Three dense sentences, no repetition, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes information about usage, behavior, or prerequisites.
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?
With only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the inputs, the resulting behavior, and the pre-requisite for obtaining the ID. It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.
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%, but the description adds semantics: 'omit revision to return to immediately previous one' clarifies the default behavior, and 'Service ID (from scalix_run_list)' ties the id parameter to a reliable source. This goes beyond the schema's basic types.
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 uses a specific verb ('Roll back') and resource ('Scalix Run service'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like scalix_run_deploy or scalix_run_scale. It also clarifies optional behavior for the 'revision' parameter, adding precision.
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?
The description gives explicit context: 'Use scalix_run_list to see services and their current revisions' provides a prerequisite and a sibling alternative. It does not explicitly contrast with deploy/scale, but the rollback purpose is clear enough for basic guidance.
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.