Skip to main content
Glama

Check sign-up approval

signup_status

Getting set up: use this after signup_start when the person approves by tapping the button in their email instead of reading you a code. Send the request_id. Returns "waiting" (ask again after the number of seconds it gives), your API key once they approve (shown once; save it), or "expired".

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": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>"
    },
    "name": "signup_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestIdYesThe request_id from signup_start.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the key return states: waiting with retry timing, API key on approval with a one-time display warning, and expired. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a polling approval tool.

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 information-dense and front-loads the usage condition, but the delivery is a bit run-on and the opening phrase 'Getting set up:' is less useful than the specific signup_start guidance that follows.

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 one-parameter status/polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return values, retry behavior, API key handling, and expiration. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears missing.

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 requestId parameter is already documented as coming from signup_start. The description reinforces this by saying to send the request_id, but adds no extra syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action (check sign-up approval status) and clearly places it after signup_start. It implicitly distinguishes the email-button approval flow from the code-reading alternative, which maps to signup_verify, though it does not name that sibling directly.

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 gives an explicit trigger: use after signup_start when the person approves by tapping the email button instead of reading a code. It also explains what to do on a waiting response by polling again after the returned number of seconds.

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.