Skip to main content
Glama

Get HelpCenter Change Set Status

helpcenter_get_change_set_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check on a change set's release — the poll after helpcenter_publish_change_set.

A change set is a named release. It groups work that already exists — staged edits on published articles, never-published draft articles, and category visibility changes — and publishes all of it together, now or at a scheduled time. It owns no content: removing an item or deleting the set never deletes the work, which simply stays unreleased.

Use one when several articles have to go live at the same moment — a feature launch, a restructure, a coordinated translation. For one article, helpcenter_publish_staged_changes (or publishing a draft with helpcenter_update_article) is simpler. The flow: stage edits with helpcenter_stage_article_changes, or write drafts with helpcenter_create_article and published: false -> helpcenter_create_change_set -> helpcenter_add_change_set_items -> check readiness with helpcenter_get_change_set -> helpcenter_publish_change_set -> poll helpcenter_get_change_set_status until done.

Change sets are part of the Catalyst plan, behind the same gate as staged changes; on other plans the API answers 402.

Read-only. Loop on 'done', not on the status name: done is true once nothing more will happen without you (published, partially published, failed, or open and unscheduled) and false while it is publishing or waiting for its scheduled time. Wait a few seconds between polls — these calls count against the API's per-minute write budget.

When it finishes as 'partially_published' or 'failed', each item's 'error' says what went wrong. Fix that, then publish the set again.

Args:

  • change_set_id (number, required).

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json'): default 'markdown'.

Returns: { status: "success", change_set_status, done, processed_items, total_items, published_at, items: [{ id, type, article_id, locale, variant, applied, error }] }.

Errors: 404 if the change set is not in this help center.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "change_set_id": "<change_set_id>"
    },
    "name": "helpcenter_get_change_set_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_idNoWhich help center to act on: an id from helpcenter_list_sites. Needed when this connection reaches more than one help center; omit it when it reaches one. Applies to this call only — pass it on every call of a task, and ask the user which help center they mean if their request does not say.
change_set_idYesId of the change set.
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' for a human-readable summary or 'json' for the full structured payload.markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: the 402 plan gate, the warning that these polls count against a per-minute write budget so you should space them out, and the 404 case. The 'done' vs status-name polling rule is spelled out precisely, though the item-level 'error' semantics are only sketched ('each item's error says what went wrong') rather than explained.

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 one-line purpose, then usage, flow, gating, polling rule, and return shape in a logical progression. Slightly long, and the 'owns no content / deleting the set never deletes the work' reassurance is useful but peripheral to a status call, keeping it out of the top tier.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by inlining the full return shape (status, done, processed_items, total_items, published_at, items[]) and the error cases. Combined with the poll semantics and failure-recovery guidance ('fix that, then publish the set again'), an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so change_set_id, site_id and response_format are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description contextualizes change_set_id by explaining what a change set contains and that it owns no content, but it adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail (e.g. IDs from helpcenter_list_change_sets) for the parameters themselves.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Check on a change set's release') and immediately positions it as 'the poll after helpcenter_publish_change_set', distinguishing it from the readiness-check sibling helpcenter_get_change_set. It also defines what a change set is, which orients an agent that has never seen the concept.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (several articles must go live at the same moment: launch, restructure, translation) and a named simpler alternative for one article (helpcenter_publish_staged_changes or helpcenter_update_article on a draft). It even lays out the full ordered flow from staging through polling, plus plan-gating (402 outside Catalyst).

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