Skip to main content
Glama
eliaskress

FlowCheck Financial API MCP Server

by eliaskress

Registration Status

flowcheck_get_registration_status

Check registration status and retrieve your API key after completing the FlowCheck checkout process. This tool verifies registration and provides the API key once.

Instructions

Check registration status and retrieve the API key after checkout. The API key is only returned once. No API key required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesRegistration token from flowcheck_register

Implementation Reference

  • The tool 'flowcheck_get_registration_status' is registered and implemented within the 'registerAuthTools' function. It takes a registration token as input and makes an authenticated (or no-auth) request to the '/auth/register/status' endpoint via the FlowCheck client.
    server.registerTool(
      "flowcheck_get_registration_status",
      {
        title: "Registration Status",
        description:
          "Check registration status and retrieve the API key after checkout. " +
          "The API key is only returned once. No API key required.",
        inputSchema: z.object({
          token: z
            .string()
            .describe("Registration token from flowcheck_register"),
        }),
      },
      async ({ token }) => {
        const result = await client.request("GET", "/auth/register/status", {
          params: { token },
          noAuth: true,
        });
        return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: result }] };
      },
    );
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: the API key is returned only once (idempotency behavior) and 'No API key required' (authentication needs). This covers key traits like idempotency and auth, though it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, which would be helpful for a tool with no output schema.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two concise sentences that directly convey purpose and key behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and some behavior but doesn't detail the response format (e.g., what fields are returned besides the API key) or error conditions. With no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets minimum viability.

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%, with the parameter 'token' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or usage notes for the token. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check registration status and retrieve the API key after checkout.' It specifies the verb ('check' and 'retrieve') and resource ('registration status' and 'API key'), distinguishing it from siblings like flowcheck_register (which likely initiates registration). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as flowcheck_get_balance or flowcheck_get_payout, which also retrieve data.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'after checkout' and 'The API key is only returned once.' This implies it should be used post-registration to confirm status and obtain the key, with a note on idempotency. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., flowcheck_register for initial registration), which prevents a score of 5.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/eliaskress/flow-check-financial-api-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server