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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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 cover readOnly/destructive hints. The description adds context by specifying the host-only requirement and that the request must be pending, but it does not describe side effects, error conditions, or state changes beyond the approval itself. That is modest additional transparency.
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?
A single, tightly structured sentence front-loads the most important constraint ('Host-only') and delivers the action and input in one breath. No filler.
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 mutation with full schema coverage, a clarifying host-only scope, and an output schema present, the description provides all essential context. Return values are covered by the output schema, so nothing is missing.
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 already documents tempUserId fully ('Temp user ID from session_status pendingJoins') with 100% coverage, so baseline 3 applies. The description merely restates 'by their temp user ID' without adding new semantic detail.
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'), a clear resource ('pending guest join request'), and the identifying input ('temp user ID'). 'Host-only' further delineates scope. It is easily distinguished from sibling srift_reject_join (reject) and srift_kick_user (remove existing user).
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?
Explicitly scoped to host use and pending requests, which tells an agent when this tool is applicable. However, it doesn't name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., use srift_reject_join to deny), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.