Skip to main content
Glama

Get app status

get_app_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Live deployment status of a project: state (running/crash/stopped/pending), commit, deploy URL, last build status, pod readiness, restart count and start time. Defaults to the canonical (production) commit — pass commit to ask about a specific one — after deploy_files the fresh commit is not canonical yet and the default would answer about the version production still serves. The reply always names the commit it describes and whether that commit is canonical. While a rollback is running on the project the reply carries a rollback object: the commit and state shown are then not final and the data may not be restored yet; get_rollback_status reports the end.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commitNooptional commit hash, full or abbreviated (the 7-char form list_deployments returns is accepted); defaults to the canonical (production) commit. A fresh deploy_files commit is not canonical, so the default answers about the version production still serves; pass the new commit to see its own pod.
project_idYesthe project id (from list_projects)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
siteNo
readyYes
stateYes
commitNo
frozenNo
healthyYes
restartsYes
rollbackNopresent only while a rollback is running on this project: the commit and state in this answer are then not final, and the data may not be restored yet. Absent when no rollback is running
log_dropsNopresent only when lines were dropped in the last 24 hours because the app logged faster than its log limit; a gap in the logs is then expected
deploy_urlNo
expires_atNo
project_idYes
started_atNo
dev_sessionNo
build_statusNo
google_loginYes
is_canonicalYes
unsaved_draftNopresent only when no draft is running and the last draft stopped on its own with changes that were never committed; sync_files brings them back into the next draft
canonical_hostNo
canonical_commitNo
available_at_siteYes
google_login_modeNo
pod_read_age_secondsYesage in seconds of the pod fields state, healthy, ready, restarts and started_at; 0 means read just now. They are reused for up to 5 seconds and refreshed after any write you make
available_at_site_reasonNo
google_login_allowed_emailsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context on top: the reply always self-identifies the commit and its canonicality, and during a rollback the returned commit/state are explicitly non-final and possibly unrestored. That is exactly the kind of caveat an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the field inventory, then the commit-selection caveat, then the rollback caveat — a sensible ordering. It is dense and the canonical-commit caveat is stated twice (in the commit sentence and again in the rollback sentence), costing a little economy.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description goes further by flagging that the payload self-describes its commit and can carry a rollback object whose data may not be final. For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, but the description still reinforces the non-obvious semantics of commit: the fresh deploy_files commit isn't canonical, so the default answers about the version production still serves. It adds interpretive value beyond a bare field description rather than merely restating types.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Live deployment status of a project') and enumerates exactly what comes back: state, commit, deploy URL, build status, pod readiness, restart count, start time. It also draws a boundary with get_rollback_status, so an agent can distinguish it from adjacent status tools without opening a schema.

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?

It states clearly when the default applies (canonical/production commit) and when to override it (pass commit to ask about a specific one), including the concrete post-deploy_files pitfall. It doesn't explicitly route the agent between this tool and get_build_status or probe_app, so it stops short of full alternative 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