Decision Log

Resolve a decision candidate

decision_log_resolve_candidate

Destructive

Approve or reject a pending DecisionCandidate.

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": {
      "candidateId": "<candidateId>",
      "resolution": "<resolution>"
    },
    "name": "decision_log_resolve_candidate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	Concise direct-action title without speaker wrappers or ellipses.
`reason`	No	Optional rejection reason.
`summary`	No	Optional summary.
`metadata`	No
`rationale`	No	Why the decision was made.
`sourceIds`	No
`resolution`	Yes
`candidateId`	Yes	Candidate identifier.
`decisionText`	No	The immutable meaning of the decision.
`decisionType`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedAug 24, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds the context that the candidate is 'pending' and implies it becomes resolved, but it does not disclose consequences like irreversibility, what gets destroyed, or permission needs. It adds minimal value beyond the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action with zero waste. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, an output schema, and nested objects, yet the description offers almost no operational context. It omits side effects, prerequisites, or guidance on the many optional fields. The output schema explains return values, but the description alone is insufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 60%, leaving 40% of parameters undocumented, including the required 'resolution' which lacks a description. The tool description does not clarify any parameters or their relationships, only loosely tying 'approve or reject' to the resolution field. It fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 action ('Approve or reject') and the resource ('pending DecisionCandidate'), which is specific and distinct from a generic process. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'decision_log_approve_decision_action', leaving potential ambiguity about which tool to choose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'decision_log_approve_decision_action' or 'decision_log_render_candidate_review'. It lacks any exclusions or contextual cues beyond the obvious 'pending' state.

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

All Decision Log tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?