Handsome Hosting

Approval status

action_status

Read-only

The state of an approval by actionId: pending, approved, done, declined, expired or failed, with the decision time, the error if any and a note on what to do next. Or a client link by inviteId (from a new project ordered with payer client): sent, claimed, paid, live, cancelled or expired, with the service once it exists, the person's monthly share and a note on what to do next.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "action_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`actionId`	No	the actionId an approval request returned
`inviteId`	No	the inviteId a client-paid order returned

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / actionId / description

Previous value: -"from request_action, create_project or resize"New value: +"the actionId an approval request returned"

changedInput schema / properties / inviteId / description

Previous value: -"from create_project with payer client"New value: +"the inviteId a client-paid order returned"

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds genuinely useful disclosure: which states can come back, that the decision time and error are included, and that a 'what to do next' note is attached. It stops short of saying how the two optional params interact (both provided, or neither).

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?

Two sentences, each front-loaded with its identification parameter, and the value enumerations are compact. Slight redundancy in repeating 'a note on what to do next' for both modes.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, this covers intent, states and return highlights well. The only omission is the semantics of calling with no parameter or both parameters, which matters since neither is required.

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 already 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the field docs by mapping each parameter to a different result shape: actionId yields approval state plus decision time/error, inviteId yields link state plus service, monthly share and next-step note.

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 (retrieve state) and two concrete resources: an approval keyed by actionId and a client link keyed by inviteId, each with enumerated state values. An agent can distinguish this from sibling status tools like deploy_status or wp_status, which cover different resources.

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?

The two modes are clearly segmented: use actionId for approvals, inviteId for client-paid order links. It doesn't explicitly say when to reach for this instead of request_action or what to do if neither parameter is supplied, but the context for each mode is unambiguous.

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

All Handsome Hosting tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?