vercel-mcp-pro

get_check

Retrieve status, conclusion, and output for a single check on a Vercel deployment using the deployment and check IDs.

Instructions

Get a single check on a deployment by id (status, conclusion, output).

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": {
      "deploymentId": "<deploymentId>",
      "checkId": "<checkId>"
    },
    "name": "get_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`deploymentId`	Yes	Deployment id (dpl_...).
`checkId`	Yes	Check id.
`teamId`	No	Team ID to scope the request. Falls back to VERCEL_TEAM_ID when omitted.
`slug`	No	Team slug to scope the request (alternative to teamId).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided; the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the return fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Could benefit from a small usage hint but is overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers core functionality and return fields. Given no output schema, it adequately addresses the most critical aspect, though it could mention prerequisites or error cases.

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 descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'Get a single check on a deployment by id' with specific return fields (status, conclusion, output). Distinguishes from siblings like list_checks (list all) and create_check (create).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies usage when you need a single check's details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_checks for multiple checks or create_update for mutations.

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

Deploy Server