CleanApp

Check a submission receipt

cleanapp_report_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks what happened to their CleanApp submission and supplies the private tracking token returned for that report. Returns intake status and lane only, not proof of notification or resolution. Never search for another user’s receipt or guess identifiers.

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": {
      "tracking_token": "<tracking_token>"
    },
    "name": "cleanapp_report_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tracking_token`	Yes	Private tracking token returned when the report was prepared or submitted. Never guess report IDs.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view`	Yes
`message`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the returned data is limited to intake status and lane and does not constitute proof of notification or resolution, plus a privacy constraint against cross-user lookups. It does not discuss failure behavior for an unknown or expired token, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the triggering user situation, then the result scope, then the safety constraint. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema present, the description covers trigger, scope of results, and privacy constraints, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The only gap is what happens when the token is invalid or unknown, which an agent would want to know before reporting back to a user.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented there, including the 'never guess report IDs' warning. The description reinforces provenance ('returned for that report') and privacy ('private tracking token') but introduces no format or length guidance beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description names a specific verb-and-resource pair: check the status of a CleanApp submission receipt, and it bounds the result ('intake status and lane only, not proof of notification or resolution'). The user-facing trigger ('user asks what happened to their CleanApp submission') makes it distinguishable from the prepare/submit siblings without opening schemas, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

It states the exact precondition (the user supplies the private tracking token returned for that report) and adds explicit exclusions: never search for another user's receipt, never guess identifiers. That is when-to-use plus when-not-to-do, leaving little to inference.

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

All CleanApp 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?