Skip to main content
Glama

Get approval status

get_plan_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the current outcome of a gated write tool call that came back pending_approval (plan mode: promote_commit, demote_commit, delete_commit, stop_commit, set_env_vars, update_settings, execute_sql, redeploy, deploy_project, deploy_files, or expose_commit parked instead of running because the project requires a human to approve it first). Pass the plan_id the original call returned. Reports pending (still waiting in the dashboard), approved (decided, about to run), rejected, expired (nobody decided within the TTL), applied (approved and executed — the action already happened), or failed (approved but could not run — see error, e.g. the project's state moved since the plan was created). There is no apply call: a human approving in the dashboard is what executes the action, so the original call is not repeated. await_plan is the blocking variant of this read; this one returns a single status at once. retry_after_s, when present, is the polling interval; its absence means the status is terminal.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_idYesthe plan id a gated tool returned when it parked pending approval

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolYes
errorNoset when status is failed
statusYespending (awaiting a human in the dashboard — including after a drift refresh, see refresh_count), approved (decided, not yet run), rejected, expired (TTL lapsed before anyone decided), applied (approved and executed), or failed (approved but the fingerprint check or the executor itself failed — see error)
plan_idYes
applied_atNo
created_atYes
decided_atNo
decided_byNo
expires_atYes
last_driftNowhat changed under the previously-approved card, prompting the latest refresh
project_idYes
refresh_countNohow many times an approve hit state drift and sent this plan back to pending with a rebuilt evidence card and a fresh TTL — status stays pending and still needs a human, keep polling; absent when it never happened
retry_after_sNowait at least this many seconds before calling get_plan_status again; absent means the status is terminal and further calls are pointless. Prefer await_plan, which blocks server-side and needs no loop at all
last_refreshed_atNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotent annotations, it discloses the full status vocabulary with semantics (approved vs applied vs failed, expired TTL), that approval in the dashboard is what executes the action, and that retry_after_s presence/absence signals terminal vs polling state.

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?

One dense paragraph, but front-loaded with the purpose and alternatives before the status enumeration. The inline list of eleven tool names is heavy yet functional since it defines scope precisely; little else could be cut without losing routing value.

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?

Output schema exists, yet the description still explains the possible statuses and the meaning of retry_after_s, and it covers the lifecycle gap (no apply call). An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds contextual meaning by tying plan_id to the specific gated calls that return it. It does not add format details or error conditions for the id, so it edges just above baseline.

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 ('read the current outcome of a gated write tool call') and enumerates exactly which calls park pending approval. It is clearly distinguishable from await_plan and from the write siblings it reports on.

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?

Explicitly says to use this when a gated call returned pending_approval, names await_plan as the blocking alternative and states when to prefer each, and preempts a likely misuse by declaring 'there is no apply call'. Nothing is left to inference.

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