Skip to main content
Glama

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. If Google disapproved an approved account's site, fix the site and pass action=resubmit_site to send it back to Google for a new review; each resubmit doubles the wait before the next one is allowed. 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenNoYour application token (at_...). May instead be sent as an Authorization: Bearer header.
actionNoOptional. Omit for a normal status poll. Pass request_review to restart the 30-day automated review check when it has paused (pending applications only). Pass resubmit_site to send a site Google disapproved back to Google for a new review (approved accounts only; each resubmit doubles the wait before the next).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / description
      Previous value: -"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)."New value: +"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). Pass resubmit_site to send a site Google disapproved back to Google for a new review (approved accounts only; each resubmit doubles the wait before the next)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behavior beyond the annotations: pending applications serve Rocket Sloth creatives, approval returns the API token exactly once, units upgrade automatically, the automated review runs hourly but pauses after 30 days, and resubmits double the wait. These details are consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and they materially help an agent anticipate side effects and timing.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is appropriately detailed for a tool with authentication nuances and state-changing actions. It is a dense single paragraph, but nearly every sentence carries useful operational context.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description covers the important returns and side effects: the one-time API token on approval, automatic demand upgrade, review cadence, pause behavior, resubmit cooldown, and the alternative Bearer session path. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly across its modes.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both the token format and the action values. The description reinforces the at_ token format and action timing, but much of the parameter meaning is already present in the schema rather than added by the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: check an application's status using its application token. It also distinguishes the normal status poll from the optional request_review and resubmit_site actions, so an agent can understand the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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 conditions for each mode: omit action for a normal status poll, use request_review only for pending applications whose automated checks have paused, and use resubmit_site only for approved accounts whose site Google disapproved. It also explains the Bearer web-session authentication path so the agent does not wrongly ask for a pasted token.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources