Skip to main content
Glama

get_project_deploy_status

Retrieve the deployment status of a project defined in .ploi.json configuration, enabling verification of current deployment state.

Instructions

Check deployment status for the current project using .ploi.json config

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathYesThe path to the project directory containing .ploi.json

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for 'get_project_deploy_status' tool. Reads .ploi.json config, fetches the site status via client.getSite(), and returns the domain, status, server_id, and site_id as JSON.
    async ({ project_path }) => {
      const config = await readPloiConfig(project_path);
      if (!config) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text" as const,
              text: `No .ploi.json config found in ${project_path}`,
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    
      const site = await client.getSite(config.server_id, config.site_id);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text" as const,
            text: JSON.stringify({
              domain: site.domain,
              status: site.status,
              server_id: config.server_id,
              site_id: config.site_id,
            }, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • The input schema for 'get_project_deploy_status'. Takes a single string parameter 'project_path' describing the path to the project directory containing .ploi.json.
    {
      project_path: z.string().describe("The path to the project directory containing .ploi.json"),
    },
  • The tool registration call using server.tool() with name 'get_project_deploy_status' and description 'Check deployment status for the current project using .ploi.json config'. Registered inside registerSiteTools() which is called from registerAllTools().
    server.tool(
      "get_project_deploy_status",
      "Check deployment status for the current project using .ploi.json config",
      {
        project_path: z.string().describe("The path to the project directory containing .ploi.json"),
      },
      async ({ project_path }) => {
        const config = await readPloiConfig(project_path);
        if (!config) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text" as const,
                text: `No .ploi.json config found in ${project_path}`,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
    
        const site = await client.getSite(config.server_id, config.site_id);
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text" as const,
              text: JSON.stringify({
                domain: site.domain,
                status: site.status,
                server_id: config.server_id,
                site_id: config.site_id,
              }, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    );
  • Helper function readPloiConfig() that reads and parses .ploi.json from a project path, returning the server_id and site_id configuration or null on failure.
    async function readPloiConfig(projectPath: string): Promise<PloiConfig | null> {
      try {
        const configPath = join(projectPath, ".ploi.json");
        const content = await readFile(configPath, "utf-8");
        const config = JSON.parse(content) as PloiConfig;
        if (typeof config.server_id === "number" && typeof config.site_id === "number") {
          return config;
        }
        return null;
      } catch {
        return null;
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but no output schema exists. The description does not hint at the format or content of the deployment status (e.g., success/failure, progress). It is minimally adequate but leaves potential uncertainty.

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% with one parameter fully described. The description adds the concept of a '.ploi.json' config, but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'deployment status for the current project using .ploi.json config'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'deploy_project' or 'get_site', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_site' or 'deploy_project'. The description only implies a use case without exclusions or context.

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/sudanese/ploi-mcp'

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