Check the deployment status of a Git repository in cPanel to verify whether changes are deployed or deployment is pending.
Get the deployment status of a Git repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repository_root | Yes | Repository path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or returns a particular format. The description merely restates the tool name without adding behavioral context beyond the implied 'get' semantics.
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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is extremely minimal and could be expanded to include useful context without becoming verbose, so it does not earn a perfect score.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'deployment status' entails or what the response looks like. It also lacks guidance on how this tool fits with sibling Git tools. For a simple getter, it is barely adequate.
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 input schema has one parameter with a description ('Repository path'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter docs, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('deployment status of a Git repository'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'deploy_git_repo' (which deploys) and 'list_git_repos' (which lists repositories), making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.