Kleap

Check Build Status

check_task

Check a create/modify task. Returns quickly with the CURRENT status — report it to the user rather than calling again in the same turn; a build takes 5-15 min, so the answer to 'is it ready?' is usually 'still building, here is the progress'. The optional wait can shorten the hold but cannot exceed the server cap (8 seconds by default). status is one of: queued, processing, completed, failed, unknown_task (the id is unknown or aged out — that is an answer, not a failure: check the site itself with get_publish_status). On 'completed' the FILES are written; check deployment_status — 'pending' means the site is going live right now and production_url is still the PREVIOUS version, so say 'built, going live' and check once more in about a minute rather than reporting it stuck. 'deployed' means it is genuinely live. On 'failed': TASK_TIMEOUT/STALE_TASK = transient stall → retry_task (returns a NEW task_id to poll); TASK_FAILED = read error.message, retry once. (Out-of-credits is not a task failure — create/modify reject up front with 402 INSUFFICIENT_CREDITS.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wait`	No	Optional. Seconds to hold the connection before returning. Capped server-side at a few seconds so the call always comes back inside a single turn — asking for more has no effect. Leave it unset.
`context`	Yes	Why this call, in one short sentence. Used to improve the connector; never include credentials or personal data.
`task_id`	Yes	The task_id returned by create_app or modify_app

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`plan`	No
`slug`	No
`app_id`	No
`reason`	No
`result`	No
`status`	No
`palette`	No
`task_id`	No
`metadata`	No
`progress`	No
`preview_url`	No
`production_url`	No
`screenshot_url`	No
`deployment_status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses status semantics, wait-capping behavior, deployment_status interpretation, and exact error-code-to-action mappings for failed tasks. This gives the agent a complete picture of how the tool behaves and what consequences its results imply.

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 long but each sentence carries operational value, with important status logic front-loaded. The dense flow of status cases could be more structured, but the content justifies the length and no sentence feels wasted.

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 fully covers statuses, next actions, retry behavior, deployment status, and sibling-tool routing, so the agent can act correctly without additional research. Since an output schema exists, not describing the raw return shape is acceptable.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the wait cap concept)Skip. The description adds only a specific default value (8 seconds) and restates task_id's source, so it contributes little beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource ('Check a create/modify task') and then enumerates the possible status values, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from get_publish_status by explicitly pointing there for unknown/aged-out task IDs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives strong when-to-use guidance: report the current status immediately, don't repoll in the same turn, and use get_publish_status or retry_task for specific conditions. It even clarifies that out-of-credits failures belong to create/modify, not to this tool.

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

All Kleap tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.