Skip to main content
Glama

MM7 Company MCP

get_cloud_trial_status

Poll cloud demo status after request_cloud_trial. Required: email (same as in the order) + request_id (ctr_…) or order_id. Returns ready, demo_url when the base is up, application status, trial dates. Poll every 1–5 minutes while provisioning.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "get_cloud_trial_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes
refreshNo
order_idNo
request_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral load and largely does: it discloses return content (ready, demo_url, application status, trial dates) and the recommended poll cadence. It omits auth/permission needs, error states, and what the 'refresh' flag actually changes.

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?

Telegram-dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then requirements, return fields, and cadence. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details are optional here, yet the description still summarizes key fields and adds the polling workflow. Reasonably complete for a status-check tool, with the unexplained 'refresh' parameter the main gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for email (must match the order), request_id (ctr_… format), and the request_id-or-order_id choice, but leaves the 'refresh' parameter (default true) completely unexplained.

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?

Specific verb (Poll) + resource (cloud demo/trial status), and it explicitly ties itself to the sibling request_cloud_trial, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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?

States the triggering context (after request_cloud_trial) and gives concrete polling guidance ('every 1–5 minutes while provisioning'), which implies the terminal condition. No explicit when-not or named alternative, but for a status-poll tool the sequencing guidance is clear.

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.

Resources