Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bitacora-mcp

bitacora-mcp

by Bidcomsrl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

presentation_get_deployment

Fetches the current deployment status of a presentation, returning its commit, script ID, deployment ID, and URL.

Instructions

Devuelve el estado de publicación actual de una presentación (commit, scriptId, deploymentId, url).

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "presentation_get_deployment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID del deck.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns data; it does not explicitly confirm a read-only operation, mention permissions, side effects, or error conditions. The verb 'Devuelve' hints at read-only but is not sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the purpose and the returned fields. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete enough for a simple one-parameter read tool: it lists the return fields and makes the purpose clear. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., presentation must exist) or potential error/failure scenarios, which would warrant a 5.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a description 'ID del deck.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Devuelve' (returns) and identifies the resource as 'el estado de publicación actual de una presentación', further detailing the exact fields (commit, scriptId, deploymentId, url). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like presentation_deploy or presentation_get.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when one needs to check the current publication status of a presentation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools