Summer

This connector has been deprecated

This was a duplicate manual listing. Use Summer’s official listing, imported from the official MCP Registry. Summer’s MCP server remains active at https://api.gosummer.ai/mcp. Setup and documentation: https://gosummer.ai/docs/mcp-clients.

Approve the exact prepared execution under the authenticated operator's delegated authority

summer_actions_approve

Destructive

Approve the exact prepared execution under the authenticated operator's delegated authority. Use only for work the operator authorized, read the prepared review first, and pass its exact hash. Records the authorization and queues ordinary execution; approval does not prove a customer outcome. No caller-supplied approver identity or identity-verification attestation.

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": {
      "company": "<company>",
      "environment": "<environment>",
      "case": "<case>",
      "execution": "<execution>",
      "approval_hash": "<approval_hash>",
      "authorization": "<authorization>"
    },
    "name": "summer_actions_approve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`case`	Yes
`company`	Yes	Summer company ID
`execution`	Yes
`environment`	Yes	Environment that owns the resource
`approval_hash`	Yes
`authorization`	Yes	The operator's instruction authorizing this exact work, retained in the approval audit. This is context, not an identity attestation.
`idempotency_key`	No	Reuse the same key when retrying the same change

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it explains that the call records an authorization and queues ordinary execution, and that approval does not itself prove a customer outcome. It also clarifies no approver identity or attestation is supplied. It stops short of describing failure behavior on hash mismatch or what the recorded authorization affects downstream.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, preconditions, and effects/caveats. Dense but nothing is wasted; the hash instruction sits before the effect statement, which is the right order.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, preconditions, and post-call effects. What is missing is the failure mode for a stale or mismatched approval_hash and how the returned approval state should be interpreted, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 coverage is only 57%, but the description carries the two most semantically loaded parameters: the approval_hash must be the exact hash from the prepared review, and authorization is context retained for audit rather than an identity attestation. That compensates well; company/case/execution UUIDs remain undocumented in the description but are adequately typed as identifiers.

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?

States a specific verb (approve) and resource (the exact prepared execution), with a scope qualifier tying it to the operator's delegated authority. An agent can distinguish it from summer_actions_prepare, which produces the execution rather than authorizing it.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions: only for work the operator authorized, read the prepared review first, and pass its exact hash. This is actionable when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name summer_actions_prepare as the prerequisite source of the hash, leaving that link to inference.

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

All Summer 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?