mailpouch

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check Escalation Status

check_escalation_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if a requested permission escalation is approved, denied, or expired. Poll after requesting to confirm status and proceed safely.

Instructions

Check whether a pending permission escalation has been approved, denied, or has expired. Poll this after calling request_permission_escalation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account_id`	No	Optional account ID to route this call to (multi-account configs). Omit to use the active account. Configured account IDs are listed in the settings UI (Accounts tab).
`challenge_id`	Yes	The challenge ID returned by request_permission_escalation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`newTools`	No
`expiresAt`	No
`resolvedAt`	No
`resolvedBy`	No
`targetPreset`	No
`currentPreset`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.1.0Jul 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / account_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional account ID to route this call to (multi-account configs). Omit to use the active account. Configured account IDs are listed in the settings UI (Accounts tab).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv3.0.77Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description confirms the read-only polling behavior and adds the statuses checked. No contradiction; it adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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?

Two short, action-oriented sentences. No redundant phrases. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and usage pattern. The output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary. Completeness is high for this simple polling tool.

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 schema describes both parameters adequately. The description does not add further parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('escalation status'), and mentions three possible outcomes (approved, denied, expired), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_permission_escalation.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to poll after calling request_permission_escalation, providing clear usage context. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the polling nature is self-explanatory.

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

Deploy Server