Skip to main content
Glama

KnownFix

by io.github.b-hash88

Check a fix request

check_request

Check a private ticket from request_fix. Returns pending, declined, not-eligible, redeemed, or the full fix free once an eligible new fix is stocked. This call may atomically consume the ticket's one-time delivery, so save the returned body. Use get_fix when you already have a catalog id; do not create another request while this ticket is pending.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ticketYesPrivate req_ ticket returned once by request_fix. Reuse it unchanged and never publish it. A stocked eligible result can be redeemed only once, so save the returned fix body.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fixNoFull fix body on the ticket's single eligible free delivery.
noteNoCurrent state and recommended next step.
errorNoMachine-readable ticket or fulfillment failure.
fixIdNo
detailNoHuman-readable failure or eligibility detail.
reasonNo
statusNo
requestIdNo
receivedAtNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed12 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / ticket / description
      Previous value: -"The req_... ticket from request_fix"New value: +"Private req_ ticket returned once by request_fix. Reuse it unchanged and never publish it. A stocked eligible result can be redeemed only once, so save the returned fix body."
    • changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -trueNew value: +false
    • changedOutput schema / properties / detail / description
      Previous value: -"Human-readable error or status detail."New value: +"Human-readable failure or eligibility detail."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / error / description
      Previous value: -"Machine-readable error code, when the operation did not complete."New value: +"Machine-readable ticket or fulfillment failure."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / fix
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Full fix body on the ticket's single eligible free delivery.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / fixId
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / note
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Current state and recommended next step.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / reason
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / receivedAt
      Added value: +{
+  "format": "date-time",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / requestId
      Added value: +{
+  "format": "uuid",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / status
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "pending",
+    "declined",
+    "not-eligible",
+    "stocked",
+    "redeemed"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "detail": {
+      "description": "Human-readable error or status detail.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Machine-readable error code, when the operation did not complete.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call may atomically consume the ticket's one-time delivery and instructs the agent to save the returned body. It also notes the ticket can be redeemed only once, which is critical behavioral context not captured by annotations alone.

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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. The key warning about consuming the ticket is front-loaded, and the sibling alternative is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the output schema exists and the single parameter is fully documented, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to pass, what to expect, the side-effect risk, and how to choose between this and get_fix. No important context is missing.

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?

The schema already covers the single parameter fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining the ticket's origin (from request_fix), its one-time nature, and the need to reuse it unchanged and never publish it. This is meaningful supplementary guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a private ticket from request_fix'), and clearly enumerates the possible return values, including pending, declined, not-eligible, redeemed, or the full fix. It also differentiates itself from get_fix by naming when that sibling should be used instead.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: with a private ticket from request_fix. It also gives an alternative, 'Use get_fix when you already have a catalog id,' and warns not to create another request while this ticket is pending. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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

All KnownFix toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct resources or actions, and cross-references like 'use get_fix instead' sharply reduce confusion. A minor source of ambiguity is the cluster of redemption/offer tools (get_fix, get_skill, get_offer) and the three status-check tools, but their descriptions disambiguate them well.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: audit_, check_, get_, list_, order_, request_, search_, submit_. The naming style is uniform and predictable across different domains.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the surface is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but remains justified given the server's broad scope: catalog browsing, paid redemption, audits, services, requests, submissions, and checkout support. It is dense but not bloated.

Completeness4/5

The lifecycle coverage is strong: discover, get, request, submit, check status, order, pay, and redeem are all represented. Minor gaps exist, such as no cancellation/refund path, no way to update a submitted fix, and merch ordering delegated entirely to an external storefront.

Resources