Poll the current status for an existing deployment. Call it every few seconds after codebase_deploy until status is "ready" (url is the live site) or "error" (code, such as BUILD_FAILED, LAUNCH_CHECKS_FAILED or interrupted, and a readable message); "building" means keep polling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deployId | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the status values, maps "ready" to a live url, lists error codes (BUILD_FAILED, LAUNCH_CHECKS_FAILED, interrupted) plus a readable message, and specifies the polling cadence. It omits any note on auth requirements, rate limits, or how long to keep polling before giving up, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action, then the polling instruction, then the outcome semantics. No filler sentences and no repetition of the name or schema fields.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain results itself, and it does: status values, error codes, message, and url are all covered. Only the polling lifecycle edge cases (timeout, backoff, terminal conditions other than ready/error) are left unaddressed.
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 0%, so the two parameters are undocumented structurally. The description compensates only partially: it implies deployId is the handle obtained from codebase_deploy, but never states the expected format, and it says nothing about the provider enum or why one of the five values must be supplied.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: poll the current status of an existing deployment, with concrete return states (ready/error/building). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling codebase_get_build_status, but the deployment-vs-build framing and the deployId parameter make the target unambiguous in practice.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use: call every few seconds after codebase_deploy, and continue while status is "building"; stop at "ready" or "error". This names the triggering sibling tool and both terminating and non-terminating conditions, leaving nothing to inference.
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.
