Skip to main content
Glama

status

Check Chrome Web Store extension status to monitor deployment progress, review version details, and identify takedown warnings or upload issues.

Instructions

Fetch the current status of an extension on Chrome Web Store. Returns published/submitted revision status, deploy percentage, version, takedown/warning flags, and last upload state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemIdNoExtension item ID (defaults to CWS_ITEM_ID env var)
publisherIdNoPublisher ID (defaults to CWS_PUBLISHER_ID env var or 'me')

Implementation Reference

  • The "status" tool is defined and implemented here, fetching status information from the Chrome Web Store v2 API.
    server.tool(
      "status",
      "Fetch the current status of an extension on Chrome Web Store. Returns published/submitted revision status, deploy percentage, version, takedown/warning flags, and last upload state.",
      {
        itemId: z
          .string()
          .optional()
          .describe("Extension item ID (defaults to CWS_ITEM_ID env var)"),
        publisherId: z
          .string()
          .optional()
          .describe("Publisher ID (defaults to CWS_PUBLISHER_ID env var or 'me')"),
      },
      async ({ itemId, publisherId }) => {
        try {
          const id = resolveItemId(itemId);
          const pub = resolvePublisherId(publisherId);
    
          const url = `${API_BASE}/v2/publishers/${pub}/items/${id}:fetchStatus`;
          const result = await apiCall(url, { method: "GET" });
    
          return formatResponse(result);
        } catch (e: any) {
          return {
            content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `Error: ${e.message}` }],
            isError: true,
          };
        }
      },
    );
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature by stating 'Fetch' and details the return data, but lacks information on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's idempotent. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently lists the return values without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies what data is returned but not the format (e.g., JSON structure), and lacks error or edge-case handling details. For a read-only tool with moderate complexity, it meets minimum viability but could be more comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('itemId' and 'publisherId') with their defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the tool operates on extensions, which is already clear from the context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Fetch'), resource ('current status of an extension on Chrome Web Store'), and output details ('published/submitted revision status, deploy percentage, version, takedown/warning flags, and last upload state'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'cancel', 'publish', or 'upload' by focusing solely on status retrieval.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get' (which might retrieve different data) or other siblings. It mentions what it returns but not the context or prerequisites for invocation, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mikusnuz/cws-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server