birdfury

Get private request status

get_request_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the canonical private request, funding, submission, and payout status.

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": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "get_request_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes	Numeric request id returned by create_paid_request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026
- changedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +{}
```

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / request / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,15}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / properties / request / exclusiveMinimum
```
Removed value: -0
```
removedInput schema / properties / request / maximum
```
Removed value: -9007199254740991
```
removedInput schema / properties / request / type
```
Removed value: -"integer"
```

AddedJul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The word 'canonical' is the one real addition, implying this is the authoritative source rather than a cached or derived view, but nothing is said about behavior for unknown/invalid request ids or the freshness of status data.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the full set of status domains come immediately. Nothing is redundant with the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: enumerating funding/submission/payout hints at the returned shape, yet the description never explains what the returned status object actually contains or how statuses are represented, which matters because no output schema exists to compensate.

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% and the single `request` parameter is documented as the numeric id 'returned by create_paid_request', including the accepted integer/string forms. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (the private request's status) and enumerates the status domains returned: funding, submission, payout. That makes the scope concrete. However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling get_submission_status, whose domain it explicitly claims to cover, so the boundary between them is left ambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative. An agent holding a request id and also seeing get_submission_status and get_result_bundle in the sibling list has no textual basis for choosing this tool over them.

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

All birdfury 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?