vcf-ops-mpb-mcp

Get install deployment status

mpb_install_status

Read-only

Polls the status of a single management pack installation deployment using design and deployment IDs, so you can track install progress.

Instructions

Polls one install deployment started by mpb_install.

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": {
      "designId": "<designId>",
      "deploymentId": "<deploymentId>"
    },
    "name": "mpb_install_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`designId`	Yes	MPB design UUID (see mpb_list_designs)
`deploymentId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a polling read tied to a prior mpb_install invocation, which is meaningful context, but it does not disclose what states may be returned or whether the deployment can fail.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operative verb and the provenance of the deployment are stated immediately.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a polling tool with no output schema and an undocumented required deploymentId, the definition is thin: an agent cannot tell what the response contains, what terminal states look like, or how often to re-poll.

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 50%: designId is documented in the schema, deploymentId is not. The description partially compensates by indicating the deployment originates from mpb_install, implying where deploymentId comes from, but adds no format or validation detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ('Polls') plus specific resource ('one install deployment'), and the phrase 'started by mpb_install' distinguishes it from the sibling that initiates the deployment. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from mpb_get_design_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The only usage signal is the implied prerequisite that the deployment must have been started by mpb_install. There is no guidance on when to poll versus checking design status via another tool, no polling cadence, and no stop condition.

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