Secret Store

Check access request

check_access_request

Read-onlyIdempotent

State of a request made with request_access: pending, active (approved and usable), denied, expired, used, ended or revoked.

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": "check_access_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes	The request id returned by request_access

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`keys`	No	Only while active
`note`	No	Only when denied
`until`	No	Only while active
`scopes`	No	Only while active
`status`	Yes
`request`	Yes
`answerBy`	No	Only while pending
`singleUse`	No	Only while active
`approveUrl`	No	Only while pending
`includesProtected`	No	Only while active

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's added value is the state vocabulary, including the gloss that 'active' means 'approved and usable', which helps the agent interpret results. It does not explain polling expectations, terminal states, or what action follows a denied/expired state.

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?

One compact sentence with the subject front-loaded and the state list inline; the parenthetical clarification for 'active' is the only extra wording and it earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, this is nearly complete: it names the source of the id and the meaning of each state. The only real gap is behavioral guidance on what to do with each state (retry, re-request, stop), which an agent must infer.

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 parameter is documented as the request id returned by request_access. The description reinforces that provenance but adds no format, validation, or lookup detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource (an access request made via request_access) and precisely what is returned (its state), enumerating the possible values. It clearly ties to the request_access sibling, so an agent can distinguish this read-back tool from the request-creating one. It lacks an explicit verb phrase ('Returns the state of...'), which keeps it just below the top score.

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?

By specifying 'a request made with request_access', it establishes the precondition and the natural workflow: create a request, then check its state here. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool is named, but for a single-purpose status checker the usage context is unambiguous.

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

All Secret Store 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?