Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Authoryze

by ai.authoryze
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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). While pending_review it returns review_url, the page where a human approves or denies — relay that link to the person if they ask where the request is. Safe to poll while a request is pending_review or processing.

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": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "check_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
request_idYesThe request_id returned by request_purchase

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_id / format
      Added value: +"uuid"
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_id / pattern
      Added value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, it discloses the single-use card lifecycle, the inability to reveal an already-retrieved card again, denial-reason output, and the human approval workflow behind review_url. The statement that it never reveals a card and is safe to poll adds meaningful operational reassurance without contradicting the annotations.

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 purpose and read-only scope are front-loaded, followed by a logical progression through denied, approved, and pending_review outcomes. Although relatively detailed for a one-parameter tool, each sentence supplies actionable workflow or return-value information with no substantial filler.

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 usefully documents the important returned fields and their meanings, including denial reason, retrievable, and review_url. Together with the fully documented input schema, it provides enough context to invoke the tool, poll it appropriately, and choose the correct next step.

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?

The sole parameter has 100% schema coverage, including its UUID format and its origin as the request_id returned by request_purchase. The description does not add further request_id semantics, so it meets the high-coverage baseline rather than adding value beyond the 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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: checking the current status of a purchase request. It also distinguishes this tool from retrieve_card and request_purchase by stating that it never issues, draws, or reveals a card and by explaining when those sibling workflows are needed.

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 gives explicit next actions: call retrieve_card once when approved and retrievable is true, start a new purchase when the card was already retrieved and another is needed, and relay review_url during pending_review when requested. It also identifies pending_review and processing as states where polling is safe.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources