Skip to main content
Glama

netcafe-build

by com.ainetcafe

Check a submitted or hosted project

project_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check where a repository stands on AI NetCafé: live (with its public page and app URL), in the deployment pipeline, rejected (with the reason), or unknown. Use after submit_project. Example — GET https://ainetcafe.com/t/project_status?repo=<owner/name>

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesGitHub repository owner/name, full URL, or the listed slug.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful behavioral context by detailing the return categories (live with URL, rejected with reason, unknown), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 compact: two sentences plus a relevant example. It front-loads the key action and lists possible outcomes efficiently. Every element serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value details are already covered. The description adequately covers purpose, usage timing, and parameter format. Minor gaps like error handling are not critical for tool selection or invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'repo' parameter. The description reinforces this with a concrete example URL, clarifying the expected format. This adds practical value beyond the schema's description without being redundant.

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 ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource (repository status on AI NetCafé). It enumerates the possible outcomes (live, pipeline, rejected, unknown), which makes the tool's function explicit and distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_job' or 'get_app'.

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 temporal guidance: 'Use after submit_project.' This clearly indicates when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the stated context is sufficient for an agent to know this is the follow-up status check.

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

All netcafe-build toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources: build_app creates new apps, get_app/list_apps retrieve app info, submit_project handles existing repos, project_status tracks submissions, and check_job polls job status. However, check_job's description references tools not present on this server (deep_research, translate_pdf, make_slides), which could cause agents to misuse it for unrelated job types.

Naming Consistency3/5

The majority follow a verb_noun pattern (build_app, check_job, get_app, list_apps, submit_project), but project_status breaks the pattern as a noun phrase, and what_can_you_do is a question-style outlier. The inconsistency, while not chaotic, prevents a perfectly predictable naming scheme.

Tool Count4/5

Seven tools is a reasonable number for a hosting/build platform, covering the main actions without feeling bloated. The presence of two status-checking tools and a meta-tool (what_can_you_do) is slightly redundant but not problematic.

Completeness3/5

The set covers creation (build_app, submit_project) and reading (get_app, list_apps), but lacks update/delete operations for apps, leaving the lifecycle incomplete. Additionally, check_job references job types (deep_research, translate_pdf, make_slides) that do not correspond to any tools in this set, suggesting an incomplete or mismatched surface relative to its documentation.

Resources