Skip to main content
Glama

Check an API build

writ_discovery_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Poll a build's status from writ_website_to_api. Returns terminal state, escalations, and guidance needs, automatically following superseded builds.

Instructions

Poll a build started by writ_website_to_api. Terminal states are succeeded, failed and cancelled. RESTING state: needs_guidance — Writ's mechanical rungs are done and the build is YOURS to finish: it carries map (endpoints seen, specs, candidate functions) and you continue it with writ_website_to_api mode=guided build_id=. A rung the ladder replaced reports superseded=true with fallback_build_id; with wait=true this tool FOLLOWS that pointer for you and answers with the rung now running (followed_from lists the ids it walked; poll the returned build_id from then on). escalations lists every earlier rung with the real reason it handed over (robots.txt refused the crawl, no pages fetched, nothing matched the goal, no structured list...) — quote it when you explain why a browser was needed. On success it returns the workflow_id, the surfaces mapped, and verified — FALSE for a fast/browser map, whose functions are candidates until a real run proves them; say so when you report them. Run any function with writ_run_workflow (function_name), and fetch the generated API docs (OpenAPI 3, Markdown or a Postman collection, all pointing at the real Writ endpoint) from GET /api/v1/workflows/{workflow_id}/api-docs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
waitNoONE held call (≤75s) that follows escalations to the newest rung and returns when that build is terminal or parked as needs_guidance — instead of polling. If still building at the ceiling, call again with wait=true and the build_id this answer carries.
build_idYesThe build id from writ_website_to_api.
timeout_secondsNoCeiling for wait=true (≤75).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: terminal states, the needs_guidance 'resting' state and its ownership semantics, superseded/fallback_build_id pointer following, escalations as historical hand-off reasons, and the meaning of verified=false. This is far beyond what the annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and terminal states, and nearly every sentence carries operating information. It is dense and some sentences are long, but there is little filler given the amount of behavior being disclosed.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does: workflow_id, mapped surfaces, verified flag, escalations, map contents, and followed_from. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: it explains the wait=true continuation contract ('call again with wait=true and the build_id this answer carries') and the follow-pointer behavior, which the schema's terse wait description only gestures at.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Poll a build started by writ_website_to_api') and names the sibling that creates the build. An agent can immediately tell this is the status/polling counterpart to writ_website_to_api.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to poll vs. use wait=true, what to do in the needs_guidance state, how to continue a build, and routes downstream actions to writ_run_workflow and the api-docs endpoint. It names alternatives and the conditions that select them.

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