--deprecated

This connector has been deprecated

Replaced by io.github.no-fait/infinite-audience

Check Capacity Request Status

check_topup_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read verified status for an existing subscription capacity replenishment request. Supply the request identifier from its original confirmation. Requests requiring attention are identified for an account administrator. Requires 'account-read' scope.

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_topup_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request_id`	Yes	Existing subscription capacity replenishment request identifier

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	Verified state of the existing top-up request
`guidance`	No	Interpretation or recovery guidance for this result
`next_step`	No	Whether the existing request requires account administrator attention
`count_unit`	No
`page_count`	No	Number of objects on this page, not the organization total
`count_state`	No	Unknown means no count; available does not guarantee freshness. Recount for a current value.
`next_actions`	No	Suggested next calls using returned IDs and available scopes. Not executed and not user consent.
`money_display`	No	Formatted subscription capacity amounts with currency labels, ready to display without further conversion. Unavailable amounts are omitted; zero amounts are included.
`population_input`	No	Population input used for the preview; IDs refer to their current saved definitions

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context beyond them. It does: it discloses the required 'account-read' scope, that the status returned is 'verified', and that requests needing attention are surfaced to an account administrator — useful operational detail. Return shape and pagination are not discussed, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then input provenance, then the exceptional-attention behavior, then the auth requirement. Nothing is redundant, though the 'identified for an account administrator' sentence is slightly vague in phrasing and could be tightened.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: scope requirements, ID provenance, and the meaning of flagged results. Little an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds real meaning by stating where the value originates ('from its original confirmation'), which tells the agent not to invent or reuse an arbitrary ID. It does not address the min/max length constraints already in the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read the status of an existing subscription capacity replenishment request. It is unambiguous what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from account-adjacent siblings like check_balance or get_account_usage, leaving the agent to infer that those report balances while this reports one request's status.

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?

Usage context is clear: it applies only to an *existing* request, and the identifier must come from the original confirmation, which tells the agent this is a follow-up/polling call rather than a creation call. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All --deprecated tools Inspect

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

Need Help?