Skip to main content
Glama

Kleap

Check Publish Status

get_publish_status
Read-only

Use this to check whether a website is actually published and live. Returns the published state, the live production URL, and — once a publish has run — the PUBLISH REPORT of what Kleap checked on the site it just built: broken_links (existing pages that fail), dead_nav_links (menu entries pointing at a page that was never written — 90% of real dead links, /contact most often), incoherent_pages (a page answering 200 with content that contradicts the link leading to it), checks (source findings that did NOT block the publish, each with a category and a plain sentence: forms that submit into the void, islands with no client directive so buttons do nothing, broken images, hand-rolled auth or unguarded database access, dead API routes), design_gate (was the rendered homepage looked at), live_verified (was the NEW version confirmed serving), and SEO coverage (JSON-LD pages, sitemap URL count, robots, llms.txt). report.checked:true means the audit RAN, so empty lists mean nothing was found, not that nothing was looked at. If finding_count is above zero, tell the user what was found — in the report's own words, not the rule slugs — and offer to fix it. Do NOT describe a publish as clean when the report lists findings: a site can be live, pretty and still take no leads. status is one of: published, deploying, not_published, unknown_app. Returns the state at THIS instant — report it and end the turn; publishing takes minutes, so calling it repeatedly in one turn only burns the turn.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_idYesThe app ID to check
contextYesWhy this call, in one short sentence. Used to improve the connector; never include credentials or personal data.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
slugNo
app_idNo
reasonNo
reportNo
statusNo
production_urlNo
screenshot_urlNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: report.checked:true means the audit ran, empty lists mean nothing was found, findings must be reported in the report's own words, and the state is instantaneous. It also warns against describing a site as clean when findings exist. No contradiction with the readOnly/destructive hints.

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 front-loaded with its purpose and every sentence carries operational value. It is dense and perhaps longer than typical, but the complexity of the report justifies the length. A bulleted report-field breakdown would improve structure, hence not a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the status enum, report fields, field meanings, the meaning of checked:true, and the correct user-facing behavior when findings exist. Given the output schema is present, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the response.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning for app_id or context beyond what the input schema already provides, but it does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 and resource: 'check whether a website is actually published and live.' It also distinguishes this tool from publish-related siblings by focusing on checking current state rather than performing an action.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: after a publish has run, to check live status, and to inspect the publish report. It also explicitly warns against repeated calls in one turn. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer another tool, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources