vercel-mcp-pro

update_check

Update a check's status, conclusion, or output using its unique ID for any deployment.

Instructions

Update a check's status, conclusion or output by id.

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": "update_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`deploymentId`	Yes	Deployment id (dpl_...).
`checkId`	Yes	Check id.
`status`	No
`conclusion`	No
`detailsUrl`	No
`output`	No	Metrics/output object.
`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

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided; the description implies mutation but lacks details on idempotency, permissions, or side effects. It is adequate for a simple update, but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and a nested object, the description is minimal. It does not explain update semantics (e.g., merging vs replacing output). Adequate but not fully 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?

The schema has 63% parameter description coverage. The description lists the main fields (status, conclusion, output) but adds little beyond what the schema already provides, such as deplymentId and checkId being required.

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'check', listing specific fields (status, conclusion, output) that can be updated. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_check and rerequest_check.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare with siblings like rerequest_check.

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

Deploy Server