Skip to main content
Glama
tokportal

tokportal-mcp

Official
by tokportal

tokportal_list_account_bans

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve and monitor validated ban reports and appeals for your delivered accounts, covering the full lifecycle from pending appeals to staff resolutions. Poll for updates using a timestamp watermark to track status changes.

Instructions

List ban reports and appeals. Pollable list of validated ban reports for the caller's delivered accounts, covering the whole lifecycle: appeal_pending (platform appeal filed, account unavailable but NOT yet banned), appeal_accepted (account survived), appeal_refused / no_appeal_banned (confirmed ban), and the staff commercial resolution (refund / remake / no_remake with a machine-readable reason_code such as tos_ban). This is the REST counterpart of the account.banned, account.ban_appeal.submitted, account.ban_appeal.resolved and account.ban_resolution.decided webhook events. Only staff/CM-validated bans appear here — detections from TokPortal's internal health scan are never listed. Poll with the since parameter (updated_at watermark) to pick up new reports and status changes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number.
sinceNoOnly reports updated at or after this ISO 8601 timestamp. Use the highest updated_at you have seen as a polling watermark.
statusNoFilter by appeal lifecycle status.
per_pageNoItems per page.
account_idNoFilter by saved account ID.
resolutionNoFilter by staff commercial resolution. 'pending' selects confirmed bans still awaiting the staff decision.
include_screenshotsNoWhen true, each report includes a signed 7-day URL of the ban-evidence screenshot when one exists.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe. The description adds valuable context: only staff/CM-validated bans appear, not internal scans. It also describes the polling mechanism with the 'since' watermark. A slight deduction because the description does not explicitly state pagination or rate-limit implications beyond what the schema already covers.

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 reasonably concise at 5 sentences but provides substantial detail. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds lifecycle context, REST counterpart info, and polling guidance. Slightly verbose for an ideal tool definition but still efficient. Could tighten the enum examples or use a table, but overall well-structured.

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?

Given no output schema and 7 parameters, the description covers lifecycle, polling, exclusions, and related webhook events. It explains the semantics of each status and resolution, ensuring the agent understands the data model. The parameter schema is fully described and the description compensates for the missing output schema by explaining what the tool returns (list of reports). Complete for a read-only polling tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the 'since' parameter as a polling watermark and the 'resolution' filter for staff decisions. However, it does not describe the 'include_screenshots' parameter's significance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is met, and the extra lifecycle context justifies a 4.

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 clearly states the tool lists ban reports and appeals for the caller's delivered accounts, covering the full lifecycle with specific statuses and resolutions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on bans and appeals rather than analytics, bundles, or account management.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: as the REST counterpart to webhook events, and indicates it should be polled with the 'since' parameter. It also states what is excluded (detections from internal health scans never appear), helping the agent understand limitations without confusion.

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/tokportal/tokportal-python'

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