mcp-devops-deploy

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.2
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, with clear separation between snapshots, components, environments, and deployments. The only real overlap is between create_deployment_trigger and schedule_deployment, both of which set up future deployments and could be misselected.
Naming Consistency4/5
The large majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern such as list_applications, deploy_component_versions, and get_deployment_status. Minor deviations like auth_diagnostics and create_deployment_trigger break the pattern slightly, but the naming remains predictable overall.
Tool Count4/5
Fifteen tools is at the upper boundary of a well-scoped deployment server, and each tool covers a distinct facet of the deployment workflow. A few tools such as auth_diagnostics and create_deployment_trigger feel slightly peripheral, but none seem redundant enough to cut.
Completeness3/5
Core deployment workflows are covered well: listing applications/components/environments, deploying snapshots or component versions, scheduling, and checking status. Notable gaps include no way to cancel or roll back a deployment, and triggers/snapshots only support creation with no update/delete lifecycle.
Average 3.5/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set up,' which implies creation/mutation, but it does not mention side effects, required permissions, whether existing triggers are affected, or what the response will be. This is a significant gap for a creating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short phrase with no filler words and the core purpose front-loaded. It is concise, though it errs on the side of under-specification rather than being elegantly complete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has six parameters, an enum, a conditional field, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no context about trigger selection, scheduling semantics, or return behavior. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but the description is too thin to give an agent enough context to confidently invoke the tool correctly.
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 the input schema already documents all six parameters, including the required use of IDs rather than names for environment and applicationProcess. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema carries the detail.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Set up') and the resource ('automated deployment triggers'), so an agent can tell this creates triggers rather than performing deployments. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling schedule_deployment, which could also be interpreted as setting up automated deployments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like schedule_deployment or deploy_snapshot_to_environment. The word 'automated' loosely implies persistence, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic operation. It does not mention whether the deployment is asynchronous, whether it can be canceled, what side effects occur, or how the result is returned.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant restatement. It front-loads the verb, object, and target, which makes the core purpose immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutating deployment operation with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides no context about prerequisites, return behavior, or invocation flow. The schema helps with parameter semantics, but the description is too thin for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.
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?
The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, including critical warnings that IDs must be used instead of names and where to source each ID. The description adds no parameter-level detail; the phrase 'named snapshot' is slightly imprecise because the schema demands a snapshot ID.
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?
The description clearly names the action ('Deploy'), the object ('a named snapshot'), and the target ('a specific environment'). It distinguishes itself from deploy_component_versions by emphasizing snapshots, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling deployment tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like deploy_component_versions, schedule_deployment, or create_deployment_trigger. An agent cannot reliably choose between the deployment-related siblings based on this description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only discloses that execution is deferred ('for future execution'). It does not reveal whether schedules can be canceled, whether inputs are validated at schedule time or execution time, whether recurrence is supported, or what response to expect (no output schema). The schema hints at mutually exclusive snapshot/versions and recurrence patterns, but the description itself adds almost no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is maximally efficient with zero waste and front-loads the verb. For an 8-parameter tool, though, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than crafted conciseness, so it does not earn a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, 4 required, mutually exclusive parameter groups, and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. The description omits what the tool returns, how it differs from create_deployment_trigger, and any caveats about scheduling (e.g., that snapshot and versions are alternative ways to specify content). The rich schema does not compensate for missing tool-selection and outcome context.
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 the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly, including ID-not-name requirements, date formats, the recurrence enum, and the snapshot-versus-versions exclusivity. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable under the baseline-3 rule but contributes no additional insight beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('schedule') and resource ('deployment') with the qualifier 'for future execution', which separates it from immediate-deploy siblings like deploy_snapshot_to_environment and deploy_component_versions. However, it does not differentiate it from create_deployment_trigger, whose name also implies scheduling future actions, leaving ambiguity about which scheduling tool to pick.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over create_deployment_trigger, deploy_snapshot_to_environment, or deploy_component_versions. No exclusions, triggers, or alternative-selection conditions are stated; an agent must infer the use case from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys a read operation but discloses nothing about authentication requirements, reuturn shape, or what 'deployed versions' encompasses. Not misleading, but very thin for a tool with no annotation safety net.
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?
A single 8-word sentence that front-loads the verb and states the exact operation scope. Every word eearns its place; nothing is redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter read tool this is mostly sufficient, and the schema documents both parametters fully. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of any return-value or depoloyment-semantics context leaves an agennt guessing what exactly is returnd and how this differs from get_deployment_status.
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%, and both parameters carry explicit guidance (must use the ID from a specific source tool, not the name). The description adds no parametric detail beyond that, which is acceptable per the schema-ccovers baseline of 3.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('current deployed versions in an environment'), clearly identifying a read operation on deployment inventory. It is conceptually distinct from siblings like get_component_versions (available versions) and list_application_snapshots (snapshot history), but it doesn't explicitly name those distinctions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The only usage hints live in the parameter schema ('Application ID from list_applications'), which implies a prerequisite flow but doesn't help an agent choose this tool over get_deployment_status or compare_environment_snapshots.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says a snapshot is created; it omits permissions, whether the operation is async, effects on existing snapshots or deployments, and what response to expect. For a mutating operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
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?
The description is a single action-first sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schematic, one sentence is not enough context. The description does not cover when to use it, what happens after creation, or how it affects the surrounding deployment workflow. It is minimally viable but far from complete.
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% and the parameter descriptions already explain required IDs and the role of each field. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Create' plus resource 'new snapshot' clearly identifies the operation, and 'based on current environment state' distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_snapshot_to_environment and list_application_snapshots. There is no ambiguity about what action is being described.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over deploy_snapshot_to_environment or list_application_snapshots. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a sibling is more appropriate. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the deployment action. It does not mention side effects, asynchronous execution, whether the deployment can be rolled back, prerequisites, or what happens to the target environment.
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?
The description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning and an agent can grasp the tool's core function instantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the deployment lifecycle, response, or follow-up steps such as polling status. The rich schema covers parameters, but the absence of behavioral and return-value context leaves a material gap for a mutating deployment tool.
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 the input schema already documents all parameters and ID-vs-name requirements. The description adds little beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high coverage.
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 action—deploying selected component versions to a target environment—with a clear verb and resource. It also differentiates from the sibling deploy_snapshot_to_environment by explicitly saying 'component versions' rather than snapshots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as deploy_snapshot_to_environment, schedule_deployment, or create_deployment_trigger. It does not state exclusions or conditions, so an agent must infer the intended scenario from the tool name and parameter schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get all application processes,' implying a read operation, but it does not explain response format, permissions, pagination, or any side effects. The behavioral information is minimal.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first and the deployment use case is provided in the second sentence, making it efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter list tool, the description is minimally viable but lacks detail about the return value or any operational nuances. The schema covers the parameter, but without an output schema or annotations, the description could do more to clarify what the agent should expect.
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?
The input schema covers the single parameter completely with a clear description and a required note to use the ID from list_applications. The main description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is high.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('application processes') for a specific application, making the basic purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning deployment, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling alternative.
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?
The description includes a clear usage context: 'Use this to find the process needed for deployment.' This tells the agent when the tool is relevant, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to specific alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Compare' strongly implies a read-only operation and no destructive side effects, but the description does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error behavior, or permission requirements. It provides minimal but non-misleading transparency.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It compactly captures both comparison modes ('between environments' and 'against a snapshot') in an efficient way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema covers parameter semantics well, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description does not explain what the comparison result looks like, whether the operation is safe/read-only, or how an agent should choose between targetSnapshot and targetEnvironment beyond the parameter descriptions. This leaves important operational context unspecified.
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%, and each parameter already documents ID-format requirements and the OR relationship between targetSnapshot and targetEnvironment. The tool description adds only the high-level 'environment vs snapshot' framing, which is helpful but does not substantially exceed what the schema already communicates.
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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and states the exact resource ('deployed versions between environments or against a snapshot'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list/deploy/create tools, so an agent can understand its function without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need to compare deployed versions across environments or against a snapshot. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is a useful behavioral trait. But it does not disclose details like return format, pagination, ordering, or whether in-progress snapshots are included.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action, resource, and scope efficiently.
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 simple one-parameter list operation, the description, combined with the schema's thorough parameter documentation, is nearly complete. Lacking an output schema, it could describe the return value more explicitly, but the tool's simplicity and sibling context make it sufficient.
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 coverage is 100%; the parameter 'application' is already documented with explicit instructions to use the ID from list_applications, not the name. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('snapshots') with a clear scope ('for an application'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling snapshot tools like deploy_snapshot_to_environment or create_snapshot_from_environment, though it does not explicitly name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose itself implies when to use the tool—when you need to list snapshots for an application. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative (e.g., deploy/create/compare) might be more appropriate for a given goal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, which is a useful signal, but the description does not disclose any potential limitations, response shape, pagination, or authentication requirements. It is minimal but not misleading.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds a practical use case. Every word 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?
This is a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description is largely sufficient. It states what the tool does, the resource scope, and a suggested use case; the schema handles the filter. It could mention what fields are returned, but that gap is minor for this complexity level.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'active' parameter, so the schema already explains the filter. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is required given the schema coverage. 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?
The description states a clear action ('Get information') and resource ('all components on the server'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target applications, snapshots, or deployments. It also adds a use case ('find components that can be deployed'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_component_versions, but the scope is reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives one concrete usage context: 'Use this to find components that can be deployed.' However, it doesn't mention when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like get_component_versions or list_applications, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The word 'heck' implies a read-only operation, and 'running or completed' scopes the supported states, but it does not disclose what status values will be returned, whether repeated polling is expected, or how unknown/invalid request IDs are handled.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse and evaluate quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, but because there is no output schema, it would benefit from naming the possible status values or return shape. It also does not mention what happens for missing or invalid request IDs.
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% and the requestId parameter is described as 'Request ID from a previous deployment'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Check'), a resource ('deployment'), and the scope ('running or completed'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from the deployment-mutation tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'running or completed deployment' implies it should be used after a deployment has been initiated, but the description does not explicitly name any sibling deployment-triggering tool or state when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than directly explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Get' signals a read-only operation and there is no contradiction, but the description does not clarify behaviors like default archived-version filtering, output shape, or access requirements. It is adequate but not detailed.
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?
Two short, focused sentences with no filler. The action is stated first and the purpose is appended efficiently, making the description easy to scan.
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 simple list/read tool with one required parameter and fully documented schema fields, the description is largely complete. It gives the deployment-related purpose, while the schema covers parameter semantics; an output schema is not essential for this kind of straightforward version lookup.
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?
The schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, including the required component ID and optional inactive/numResults controls, so the baseline is 3. The description adds overall workflow context but no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get all versions for a specific component') and adds a clear workflow purpose ('find the version IDs needed for deployment'). It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself, but it clearly positions itself as a lookup step before deployment tools like deploy_component_versions.
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?
The second sentence gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it when version IDs are needed for deployment. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly mention alternative snapshot/version listing tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately conveys that this is a read-style operation ('Get all environments') and that the output matters for environment IDs. It does not disclose details such as pagination, ordering, error behavior, or whether the list is filtered in any way, but the simple read-only nature is reasonably transparent for a list tool.
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?
The description is two sentences and every word earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose first, then gives the essential workflow rule. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns ('environment IDs'), and when it should be called in the broader flow. The lack of annotations and output schema means a little more behavioral detail could have been added, but nothing critical appears missing.
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 the schema already fully documents the single 'application' parameter. The description itself does not need to repeat parameter details. The schema's DO NOT use application names - use IDs only instruction is strong guidance for calling the tool correctly.
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?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all environments configured for an application.' It also relates to the deployment workflow by mentioning that it provides environment IDs before deploying. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools like list_environment_inventory, relying mostly on the tool name and sequential context.
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?
The description gives explicit usage context: ALWAYS call after list_applications to get environment IDs before deploying. This tells the agent when in the workflow this tool should be used. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The words 'diagnostics' and 'determine' imply a read-only investigative action, which is helpful. However, it does not specify whether any side effects are possible, what the diagnostic output looks like, or whether it relies on existing session state.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and the purpose immediately, and it does not repeat or contradict the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description is mostly sufficient for selection and invocation: the agent knows what the tool is for and what it reports. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the diagnostic output format and any operational caveats unspecified, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero properties, and the tool has no parameters, so the description has nothing to explain. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and nothing in the description is missing regarding arguments.
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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and clearly identifies the resource and outcome: authentication diagnostics that determine the current auth method and validity. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools, which all relate to deployment and application management.
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?
The description implies the appropriate use case: run this when you need to know the current auth method or check auth validity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the sibling tools are unrelated to authentication, so the usage context is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, and 'all applications on the server' scopes the behavior. It also discloses that the tool's key output is application IDs needed for downstream functions.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The main function is stated first, then the critical call-ordering instruction follows immediately. 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?
Given it is a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns (application information/IDs) and why it matters. It could have added explicit notes about response shape or authentication, but those are minor for such a simple discovery operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to document parameters; it mentions the relevant semantic output (application IDs) instead.
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?
States a specific action ('Get information'), a clear resource ('all applications on the server'), and a scoping purpose (obtain application IDs). It positions itself as the entry point for deployment functions, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like list_components or list_application_processes.
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 an explicit directive: ALWAYS call this first before any other deployment functions. This clearly states when it should be used, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases because there are no real alternatives for obtaining application IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-devops-deploy MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrchris2000/mcp-devops-deploy/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrchris2000/mcp-devops-deploy)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-devops-deploy MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrchris2000/mcp-devops-deploy/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrchris2000/mcp-devops-deploy)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mrchris2000/mcp-devops-deploy'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server