Skip to main content
Glama

Read a verification status

get_verification_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one paid provider verification by id. Free, no auth. The id comes from POST https://api.agentpaywire.com/v1/verify. An unknown id returns isError. Output includes status, checked_at, report_url, and paid_verification.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_verification_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesRequired verification id, a UUID.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
statusYes
paid_verificationYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds behavior the annotations don't: it is free, requires no auth, and an unknown id surfaces as isError rather than empty data. The cost/auth and error-semantics disclosures are the real value here.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the core read action is front-loaded before provenance and error details. Minor deduction because the trailing enumeration of output fields partly duplicates the output schema.

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 single-parameter getter with an output schema already covering return shape, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: id provenance, auth/cost profile, and failure mode. Nothing required 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% and the lone id parameter is documented as a required UUID, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by identifying the endpoint that mints the id, which is meaning the schema cannot express.

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?

States a specific verb and resource scoped precisely: 'Read one paid provider verification by id.' The scope word 'one' and the 'paid provider verification' qualifier make it unmistakable among the sibling list, none of which touch verification records.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition for use rather than just a purpose: the id must come from POST https://api.agentpaywire.com/v1/verify, which tells the agent this is a follow-up read, not a first call. It stops short of naming any alternative or exclusion case, but no sibling offers a competing verification read.

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