Skip to main content
Glama

Authoryze

by ai.authoryze

Check purchase request status

check_status
Read-only

Check the current status of a purchase request. Read-only: it never issues, draws, or reveals a card. Returns the status (and the denial reason when denied). When approved, it reports a retrievable boolean: true means the single-use card has not been drawn yet, so call retrieve_card ONCE when you are ready to pay; false means the card was already retrieved and cannot be shown again (start a new purchase if you need another). Safe to poll while a request is pending_review or processing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
request_idYesThe request_id returned by request_purchase

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains the meaning of the retrievable boolean and the status values, and clarifies that it never issues, draws, or reveals a card. This adds significant behavioral context.

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?

The description is a bit verbose but well-structured, covering all necessary aspects without unnecessary fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then details conditions.

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?

For a status-checking tool, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what the returned boolean means, how to proceed, and when polling is safe. It is complete for the given complexity.

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?

The request_id parameter is described as 'The request_id returned by request_purchase', which links it to a sibling tool and provides context. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool checks the current status of a purchase request, which is distinct from sibling tools like retrieve_card (which retrieves the card) and get_spending_summary (which shows spending).

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?

It explicitly instructs to call retrieve_card once when approved and retrievable is true, and notes it is safe to poll while pending. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and directs to the appropriate sibling.

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

All Authoryze toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role in the purchase lifecycle: submitting, checking status, retrieving the card, and viewing spending limits. The descriptions carefully separate read-only status checks from the one-time card draw.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern: check_status, get_spending_summary, request_purchase, retrieve_card. The style is consistent and each verb accurately signals the action.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools cover the full purchase request workflow without unnecessary extras. Each tool addresses a distinct and necessary step, and the count feels appropriately scoped for the server's purpose.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle of request, status check, card retrieval, and spending visibility is well covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit way to cancel a pending request or list historical purchases, but agents can work around these.

Resources