Edgegap MCP Server

Official

by edgegap

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Wait for a deployment to become ready

edgegap_wait_for_deployment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Polls a deployment until it is ready, fails, or times out, then returns connection details and container error details. Use it after deploying to avoid building a custom polling loop.

Instructions

Poll a deployment until it is ready, errors, or the timeout expires, then return the connection details. This is the tool to call right after edgegap_deploy. Do not build your own polling loop — this handles backoff and reports the container error detail if the server fails to start.

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_wait_for_deployment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request_id`	Yes	The request_id returned by edgegap_deploy.
`timeout_seconds`	No	How long to wait before giving up, 5-600. Default 180.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fqdn`	No
`error`	No
`ports`	No
`ready`	No
`status`	No
`running`	No
`version`	No
`location`	No
`next_step`	No
`public_ip`	No
`request_id`	No
`application`	No
`error_detail`	No
`waited_seconds`	No
`elapsed_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.12.0Oct 27, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / timeout_seconds / description

Previous value: -"How long to wait before giving up. Default 180."New value: +"How long to wait before giving up, 5-600. Default 180."

changedInput schema / properties / timeout_seconds / maximum
```
Previous value: -600New value: +9007199254740991
```
changedInput schema / properties / timeout_seconds / minimum
```
Previous value: -5New value: +-9007199254740991
```

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"
+    },
+    "waited_seconds": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.2Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by disclosing backoff handling, the three termination paths, and that container error detail is surfaced on failure start. It still doesn't say the call blocks for up to the timeout (a long-polling trait) or what connection details contain.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and termination behavior, then the sequencing guidance, then the anti-pattern warning. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 values need no explanation. The description covers the lifecycle position (after deploy), failure reporting, wait bounds, and backoff, leaving nothing an agent needs before invoking it.

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%, with both request_id and timeout_seconds documented in-schema including the 5-600 range and default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (poll), resource (a deployment), termination conditions (ready, errors, timeout), and the return value (connection details). It is clearly distinguishable from the one-shot status siblings like edgegap_get_deployment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to call it right after edgegap_deploy and warns against building a custom polling loop, which is a real when-to-use signal with an implied alternative. It stops short of contrasting with edgegap_get_deployment or edgegap_get_deployment_logs for one-off status checks.

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

Deploy Server