streamAppStatusRetrieves the current status of an app in a workspace. Optionally follows live status updates as a continuous event stream, with a frame every five seconds.
Returns one status frame. Sending Accept: text/event-stream instead follows the status live, a frame every five seconds, which never completes on its own.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| appSlug | Yes | ||
| workspaceSlug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the header-driven mode switch and the critical fact that the streaming variant never completes on its own — essential for an agent to avoid waiting indefinitely. 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 tightly written sentences with the primary single-frame behavior front-loaded, followed by the streaming variant. Every clause earns its place with no fluff or repetition of the title.
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?
The one-shot vs streaming duality is well explained, which is the tool's most complex behavioral aspect. However, with no output schema present, the description should clarify what a 'status frame' contains and does not. Parameter semantics are also left to inference, leaving moderate gaps for an agent to fully understand invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter explanation, yet it mentions none of the four parameters (workspaceSlug, appSlug, env, region). The env enum and obvious slug names offer some self-evidence, but the description adds zero parameter context to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one status frame') that clarifies the tool returns a snapshot of app status rather than a continuous stream, distinguishing it from streaming siblings like streamAppMetrics and streamActiveDeploy. The 'status frame' term is somewhat vague about what fields it contains, but the core purpose is clear and differentiated.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on the one-shot vs live invocation via the Accept header toggle, including the useful detail that the stream never completes on its own. However, it does not address when to choose this tool over alternatives like streamAppMetrics or streamActiveDeploy, nor mention any prerequisites for using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.