salesforce-metadata-mcp

Check Deployment Status

sf_check_deploy_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the status of a Salesforce metadata deployment using its async job ID, returning success, failure, and test results.

Instructions

Checks the status of an in-progress or recently completed metadata deployment by async job ID. Returns the status (Pending, InProgress, Succeeded, Failed, Canceled), component successes, failures, and test results. Use with the deploy ID returned from sf_deploy_metadata.

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": {
      "deployId": "<deployId>"
    },
    "name": "sf_check_deploy_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deployId`	Yes	Deploy async job ID returned from sf_deploy_metadata

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.5Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: what the response includes (statuses, component successes/failures, test results) and the 'recently completed' limitation, implying retention boundaries.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return payload, usage context, and relationship to sf_deploy_metadata. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% and the sole parameter deployId is well-described in the schema. The description reinforces the meaning but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('status of a metadata deployment') with the async job ID qualifier. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like sf_deploy_metadata (which performs the deployment) and sf_get_deployment_history (which lists past deployments).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states explicit usage context with 'in-progress or recently completed deployment' and 'Use with the deploy ID returned from sf_deploy_metadata.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative status/history tools.

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