Check a project's deployment state to see if it's live, failed, or still building, so you can decide whether to fetch logs or wait.
State of one project. running means the site is live, failed means the build did not succeed — call logs to see why. Any other state means the build is still working.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Project identifier, as returned by `deploy` or `list_projects`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the behavior burden on the description is lower. The description still adds meaningful behavioral context by defining the possible state values and what they mean, and by telling the agent which follow-up action to take on `failed`.
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?
The description is compact yet complete: two sentences convey the state vocabulary and the failure follow-up with no filler or repetition. The key purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up instruction is placed exactly where relevant.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the expected output states and their meaning. Nothing is missing for an agent to correctly call the tool and interpret its result.
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?
The schema fully documents the single parameter `id`, including where it comes from (`deploy` or `list_projects`), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is fine because the schema already carries the necessary semantics.
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?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: it returns the state of a single project. It goes beyond a bare statement by explaining what each state means, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like `list_projects` by narrowing scope to 'one project' and from `logs` by mentioning logs only as a follow-up.
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?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to check the status of one project and determine whether it is live, failed, or still building. It also routes the agent to `logs` when the state is `failed`, which is a concrete conditional next step, though it does not explicitly enumerate exclusions for sibling tools like `redeploy` or `set_env`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.