Ask a human expert

Recover a request_id

find_request

Read-only

Lost the request_id of a request you submitted? Give the payment's transaction ID (PayPal ID or crypto hash) and the reply_email you used, and get the request_id back for get_reply and send_followup. Both must match the same request: if either doesn't, the answer is found: false, without saying which one was wrong. Case and spacing in the transaction ID don't matter. It's also in the confirmation email. At most 20 lookups per hour from one address.

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": {
      "transaction_id": "<transaction_id>",
      "reply_email": "<reply_email>"
    },
    "name": "find_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reply_email`	Yes	The reply_email you submitted the request with
`transaction_id`	Yes	The payment's transaction ID: the PayPal ID, or the crypto hash you passed as crypto_tx

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`found`	Yes
`get_reply`	No
`request_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the security-relevant behavior that a failed match returns found: false without revealing which field was wrong, that transaction IDs are case/whitespace-insensitive, and a concrete rate limit of 20 lookups/hour per address. These are traits the annotations cannot express.

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?

Problem statement is front-loaded, followed by inputs, failure semantics, normalization, fallback source, and rate limit — five tight sentences with no filler. Every clause conveys actionable information.

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 an output schema present and both params fully covered, the description still fills the remaining gaps an agent needs: failure semantics, normalization rules, and rate limits. 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.

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description does add matching semantics (both must hit the same request) and input normalization (case and spacing don't matter), but it doesn't extend meaning much beyond what the schema states.

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+resource: recover a lost request_id from a transaction ID plus reply_email. It also names the downstream siblings (get_reply, send_followup) that consume the result, so an agent can place it precisely among the six tools.

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?

Opens with the trigger condition ('Lost the request_id of a request you submitted?') and offers the alternative source ('It's also in the confirmation email'). It also clarifies the recipient tools, so when-to-use and what-to-do-next are both explicit.

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

All Ask a human expert 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?