Skip to main content
Glama

Get deployment status

edgegap_get_deployment
Read-only

Retrieves current deployment status by request_id, returning connection address and ports when ready.

Instructions

Read the current status of one deployment, including connection address and ports once it is ready. For a deployment you just created, prefer edgegap_wait_for_deployment — it polls for you instead of making you call this in a loop.

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": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "edgegap_get_deployment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
request_idYesThe request_id returned by edgegap_deploy.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fqdnNo
errorNo
portsNo
readyNo
statusNo
runningNo
versionNo
locationNo
next_stepNo
public_ipNo
request_idNo
applicationNo
error_detailNo
elapsed_secondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
      +  "additionalProperties": {},
      +  "properties": {
      +    "application": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "elapsed_seconds": {
      +      "type": "number"
      +    },
      +    "error": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "error_detail": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "fqdn": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "location": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "next_step": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "ports": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "additionalProperties": {},
      +        "properties": {
      +          "connect": {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "external": {
      +            "type": "number"
      +          },
      +          "internal": {
      +            "type": "number"
      +          },
      +          "name": {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "protocol": {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          }
      +        },
      +        "type": "object"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "public_ip": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "ready": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "request_id": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "running": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "status": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "version": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already confirm it is a read-only operation (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds behavioral context by stating that the status is delivered only 'once it is ready' and detailing the data returned (connection address and ports), which enhances transparency.

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 definition is highly concise, using two short, impactful sentences. The most crucial information—the operational constraint and the sibling tool recommendation—is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the operational lifecycle of the tool, explaining both what the tool provides (status, ports) and how it should be used in practice (avoid manual loops). Given the high schema coverage, this provides maximum value without redundancy.

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?

The input schema coverage is 100%, providing a solid baseline. The description does not add unique semantic meaning to the required 'request_id' beyond its role in retrieving status, but it frames the context of that ID perfectly.

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 precisely states that the tool reads the 'current status' of a deployment, specifying that it includes connection address and ports. By mentioning 'one deployment,' it defines the scope, and it clearly sets this tool apart from the waiting tool.

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?

It provides extremely clear usage guidance by advising against manual polling loops. It explicitly recommends the alternative tool, edgegap_wait_for_deployment, for newly created deployments, effectively directing the agent on the optimal call pattern.

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