srift_approve_joinHost-only. Approve a pending guest join request by their temp user ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tempUserId | Yes | Temp user ID from session_status pendingJoins |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | No | True if guest was approved | |
| tempUserId | No | Approved user temporary ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True if guest was approved",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "tempUserId": {
+ "description": "Approved user temporary ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds the authorization requirement ('Host-only') and the precondition that the request be pending, neither of which appears in the annotations, which is real added value. It stops short of describing failure modes such as invalid or already-resolved temp IDs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight fragments, with the access constraint front-loaded ahead of the action. Every word carries information and nothing is padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter approval action with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained) and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essentials: who may call it and what it acts on. Only the failure/edge-case behavior for a non-pending or unknown temp ID is left unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%; the single parameter is documented in the schema as coming from session_status pendingJoins. The description's 'by their temp user ID' merely restates that, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Approve') and resource ('pending guest join request') plus the identifying key (temp user ID), so the action is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name the contrasting sibling srift_reject_join, but the polarity is obvious from the verb, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Host-only' plus 'pending' request establishes the context in which the tool applies, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. srift_reject_join for denials, srift_session_status to discover pending IDs), leaving usage partly inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.