Inbox eSIM

Get an eSIM order's status

get_order_status

Read-only

Where an Inbox eSIM order is (awaiting_payment, preparing, ready_to_install, installed, in_use, ended, refunded, cancelled, with_support), with data used, the end date and the order page. Needs the order number and the email it was bought with.

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": {
      "order_id": "<order_id>",
      "customer_email": "<customer_email>"
    },
    "name": "get_order_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`order_id`	Yes	The order number, e.g. 'ISJPAH2PXG2C' (in the paid response and the email).
`customer_email`	Yes	The email the order was bought with.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`plan`	Yes
`place`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`order_id`	Yes
`order_url`	Yes
`top_up_of`	No
`valid_until`	No
`data_used_gb`	No
`data_total_gb`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by enumerating the possible status values and stating that both order number and purchase email are required, implying ownership matching, but it says nothing about behaviour on a missing order, mismatched email, or any rate limits.

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 two sentences and front-loads the returned information before stating requirements, with no filler. The long parenthetical list of nine status values makes the first sentence dense, but every element is informative rather than redundant.

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 simple two-parameter read tool that already has an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, required inputs and the status vocabulary an agent needs to interpret results. The only gap is failure behaviour (order not found, email mismatch), which is a minor omission at this complexity level.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates them ("the order number and the email it was bought with"). It adds marginal value by framing them as a required pair for the lookup, but supplies no extra format or validation detail beyond the schema's example value.

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 names a specific resource (an Inbox eSIM order) and spells out exactly what is reported: status, data used, end date and the order page. The verb is implicit ("Where ... is") rather than an explicit "get", and no sibling tool is named, but the read-only status-lookup purpose is unmistakable against buy_esim, compare_esim_prices and find_esim_plans.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the post-purchase status check, and the "Needs the order number and the email it was bought with" clause hints at when it can be called (only with purchase credentials). There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools.

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

All Inbox eSIM 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?