Handsome Hosting

Request an approval

request_action

Destructive

Mint an approval for a money or irreversible step. kind: cancel (renewal off, the service runs to the end of the paid period), cancel-now (off the air now), delete (remove a finished or failed project), restore (a backup point over the live WordPress site: backupStamp is its stamp; scope db, files or both, default both), root-reset (a bare server) or wp-reset (a moved WordPress site, or one whose move failed, back to a fresh WordPress; the site is copied first when one was live). Nothing changes until the person clicks the approval link, which is also mailed to them and expires after one hour. Returns actionId and approveUrl.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "serviceId": "<serviceId>"
    },
    "name": "request_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes
`scope`	No
`serviceId`	Yes	the id of a service on this account
`backupStamp`	No	restore: the stamp of a backup point

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 / backupStamp / description

Previous value: -"restore: a stamp from list_backups"New value: +"restore: the stamp of a backup point"

changedInput schema / properties / serviceId / description

Previous value: -"the service id from list_services"New value: +"the id of a service on this account"

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

It goes beyond annotations by describing that nothing changes until the approval link is clicked, the link is emailed, expires after one hour, and returns actionId and approveUrl. It also notes special restore behavior (copies live site first), adding rich context.

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 front-loaded with purpose and kind details, then behavioral notes and returns. It is dense but every sentence adds value; slight improvement could be made with bullet points for readability.

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?

For a destructive, multi-kind approval tool with 50% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers when changes occur, approval flow, expiry, return values, and nuances for each kind. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The description explains each kind value and the scope/backupStamp usage for restore, compensating for missing schema descriptions on those parameters. serviceId is described in the schema, but the description does not elaborate on it further, which is acceptable given schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool mints an approval for money or irreversible steps, and explains each kind. It implicitly distinguishes from action_status by focusing on initiation, but does not explicitly name the sibling for status checking.

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 description specifies when to use it: for money or irreversible steps. It lists the kinds that require approval, but does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like action_status for follow-up.

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?