Railway MCP Server

deployment_status

Check the current status of a deployment to monitor progress, verify success, or identify failures in Railway.app infrastructure.

Instructions

[API] Check the current status of a deployment

⚡️ Best for: ✓ Monitoring deployment progress ✓ Verifying successful deployments ✓ Checking for deployment failures

⚠️ Not for: × Service runtime logs × Database logs

→ Prerequisites: deployment_list, deployment_trigger

→ Next steps: deployment_logs

→ Related: service_info, service_restart, deployment_wait

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": {
      "deploymentId": "<deploymentId>"
    },
    "name": "deployment_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deploymentId`	Yes	ID of the deployment to check status for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious status check, such as read-only nature or potential side effects. While adequate for a simple query, it could explicitly state that it does not modify state.

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 highly concise with a well-organized structure using bullet points and symbols. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently uses sections, making it easy for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers prerequisites, next steps, and related tools, and provides usage categories. No gaps identified for 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% for the single parameter (deploymentId), which has a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states 'Check the current status of a deployment' and lists specific use cases like monitoring progress and verifying successes, distinguishing it from sibling tools such as deployment_logs and service_info.

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?

Provides explicit 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, plus lists prerequisites (deployment_list, deployment_trigger) and next steps (deployment_logs), giving comprehensive guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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