Quarterline: Grease trap pumping for Austin restaurant groups, on one 90-day calendar

Check a request and its offers

request_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resume a requirement using the receipt credentials. Read the recorded requirement, any replies the business has published on it (messages: where it answers a buyer with no email, it answers here) and any linked offers. Answer a reply by sending a continuation. Contact details are kept apart.

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>",
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "request_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The request or offer id from your receipt or customer link
`token`	Yes	Private token from your receipt or customer link; keep it for later visits

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / id / description
```
Added value: +"The request or offer id from your receipt or customer link"
```
AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: authentication via private receipt credentials, the structure of what is returned (requirement, business replies, linked offers), and a privacy guarantee that contact details are kept apart.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short overall and front-loaded with the credential requirement, but the parenthetical 'messages: where it answers a buyer with no email, it answers here' is garbled and costs the reader effort. 'Answer a reply by sending a continuation' gestures at another tool without saying which.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload (requirement, replies, linked offers) and the credential prerequisite, which is what an agent needs to call it. Only the cross-tool handoff for replying remains underspecified.

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% and both parameters already document that id may be a request or offer id and that the token is private and reusable. The description only echoes 'receipt credentials,' adding no format or lifecycle detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a concrete verb and resource set: read a recorded requirement, its published replies, and any linked offers, gated by receipt credentials. It is clearly a status/retrieval tool, though the phrasing 'Resume a requirement' is indirect and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_requirement or inspect_offer by name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies the usage condition (you must hold receipt id + token from a prior submission) and hints that answering a reply requires a separate continuation call. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for reading offers or requirements, so routing relies on inference.

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

All Quarterline: Grease trap pumping for Austin restaurant groups, on one 90-day calendar 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?