get_app_statusGet detailed status for one app: deploy status, URL, last deployed commit, and any error message. Call this to check whether a deploy has finished, to get an app's live URL, or to see why an app is in error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app id returned by list_apps |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about what the status includes (deploy status, URL, commit, error) and clarifies that it reflects deploy state. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the action and return fields; the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words or redundancy.
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?
For a simple read-only status tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and return fields. It even lists return data despite no output schema, making it complete.
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?
The schema fully covers the single app_id parameter with a clear description ('The app id returned by list_apps'). The description does not add extra parameter semantics, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed status for one app' and lists specific return fields (deploy status, URL, last deployed commit, error message). It distinguishes from siblings like list_apps or get_app_logs by focusing on a single app's status.
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?
Explicitly states when to call: to check whether a deploy has finished, to get an app's live URL, or to see error reason. It doesn't mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the provided use cases are specific and actionable.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: deployment, monitoring, scaling, configuration, or listing. There is no overlap; agents can easily select the correct tool.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., deploy_app, get_app_logs, resize_database). No naming irregularities.
12 tools cover the core operations of a deployment platform without bloat or missing essentials. The count is well-scoped.
Covers deploy, manage, scale, and monitor effectively. Missing only minor operations like deleting an app or environment variable, but the core workflow is complete.