rocketsloth

Check Application Status

application_status

Check an application's status using its application token (at_...). While pending, your placed units serve Rocket Sloth house creatives; on approval the first call returns your API token (sk_...) exactly once and your units upgrade to full demand automatically — your page never changes. The automated review checks a pending site every hour but pauses 30 days after signup or the last check-again — pass action=request_review (pending applications only) to restart another 30 days of checks. A Bearer web session (the in-page agent on rocketsloth.ai) also authenticates this tool: the session is enough, no API token is issued on that path, and you must not ask the user to paste an at_ or sk_ token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	No	Your application token (at_...). May instead be sent as an Authorization: Bearer header.
`action`	No	Optional. Omit for a normal status poll. Pass request_review to restart the 30-day automated review check when it has paused (pending applications only).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / action

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. Omit for a normal status poll. Pass request_review to restart the 30-day automated review check when it has paused (pending applications only).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedJul 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the false-valued annotations by disclosing non-obvious behavior: the API token is returned exactly once on approval, units upgrade automatically, the page never changes, automated review pauses after 30 days, and the web-session path issues no API token. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs to anticipate.

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 dense but front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first clause and no filler. It is longer than average, but the length is earned by the complex stateful behavior it must explain; a lighter structural pass could improve readability slightly.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers auth paths, state transitions, timing, and side effects thoroughly. It does not enumerate all possible status values or the exact normal-poll response payload, but the key one-time token behavior is disclosed, leaving only minor ambiguity about the response shape.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even though the schema already covers both parameters, the description adds essential meaning: token can be supplied via Bearer header or replaced by a web session, and action=request_review is tied to the paused-review condition and pending-only restriction. This resolves ambiguity the schema alone leaves open.

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 names a specific verb (check), a resource (application status), and the identifying token format (at_...). The description then clarifies the application lifecycle and review behavior, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like apply or account.

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?

The description clearly states when to omit action for a normal poll and when to pass action=request_review for pending applications with paused review checks. It also gives a when-not instruction for the Bearer web-session path, though it does not explicitly name competing sibling tools as alternatives.

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

All rocketsloth 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?