kintone-get-app-deploy-statusCheck whether kintone app deployment succeeded by submitting app IDs and retrieving their deployment status.
Get app deploy status from kintone
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apps | Yes | Array of app IDs to check deploy status (maximum 300) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apps | Yes | Array of app deploy statuses |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.3Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / apps / items / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+]Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Get' without explaining what status values are returned, whether deployment is asynchronous, or whether the tool requires an active deployment. This is minimal and reveals little beyond the title.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no filler, but it mostly restates the title with 'from kintone' adding little value. It is structurally clean but under-specifying rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description does not connect it to the deployment lifecycle or clarify what 'deploy status' means. The parameter is documented and output is presumably covered by the schema, so it is minimally viable but not rich enough for confident selection among siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents the single 'apps' parameter with a description stating it is an array of app IDs with a maximum of 300. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it merits the baseline score for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and names the resource 'app deploy status', clearly indicating a read-only status query. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like kintone-deploy-app or kintone-update-statuses, so it is clear but lacks sibling contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to call this tool, such as after kintone-deploy-app to check deployment progress. There are no mentions of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, so an agent must infer its place from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.