depot-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get a Depot container build

depot_get_build

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single Depot container build's status, timestamps, duration, and cache hit ratio. Use it to check whether a build succeeded or is still running, then poll again after a pause.

Instructions

Show one Depot container build: its status, when it was created, started and finished, how long it ran, and how much of it the cache served.

Use this to check on a specific build by id: "did build X succeed", "is it still running", "how well did the cache do". It is one request and returns quickly, so it is the right way to poll a build that is in progress; call it again after a pause rather than waiting inside a tool.

It does not explain a failure. When the status is failed, error, or canceled, call depot_diagnose_build with the same buildId (and the projectId, if you know it) to find the failing step and its logs. For a list of recent builds use depot_list_builds; for Depot CI runs, which are a different product, use depot_get_ci_run.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`buildId`	Yes	The build id, as shown by depot_list_builds or the Depot dashboard.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hint`	No	The next tool to call, when there is an obvious one.
`build`	Yes
`failure`	Yes	True for failed, error, or canceled.
`terminal`	Yes	True once the build has stopped, whatever the result.
`cacheSummary`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.1Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is one fast request, it returns cache statistics, and it does not diagnose failures. This shapes agent expectations about latency and limitations.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: output summary, use cases, polling guidance, failure limitation, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured so an agent can scan it quickly. There is no redundant text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required in the description. The description covers the resource scope, expected data, polling behavior, failure-handling path, and relationships to relevant sibling tools. For a simple single-resource read, this is complete.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, buildId, and it already documents where the id comes from. The description references 'specific build by id' and 'same buildId', but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Show one Depot container build') and explicitly enumerates the returned data (status, timestamps, duration, cache served). It distinguishes container builds from CI runs and references sibling tools like depot_get_ci_run, so an agent can immediately identify what this tool covers.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('check on a specific build by id'), polling recommendations ('call it again after a pause'), and when-not-to-use instructions ('does not explain a failure'), routing to depot_diagnose_build, depot_list_builds, and depot_get_ci_run as appropriate. This leaves no ambiguity about selecting alternatives.

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