Skip to main content
Glama

settlement_proposal_accept

Accept a settlement obligation recorded against your tenant as payee — moves status proposed to accepted and stamps accepted_at under the registry's transition guard. Calling it again on an already-accepted row is idempotent (accepted_at simply re-stamps); once a proposal reaches settled the guard refuses any further move, since settled is terminal. Recording agreement only: no money moves here, settlement execution is a later rail's door. NEXT: settlement_proposal_read to verify the accepted row.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "settlement_proposal_accept"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe settlement_proposal id to accept, recorded against your tenant as payee (settlement_proposal_list shows them).
statusNo
currencyNo
accepted_atNo
descriptionNo
amount_centsNo
payer_tenant_idNo
consent_grant_idNo
related_entity_idNo
related_entity_typeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Rich disclosure beyond annotations: the transition guard, the terminal 'settled' state, the fact that no money moves, and that repeat calls re-stamp accepted_at. However, the sentence 'Calling it again ... is idempotent' conflicts with the declared idempotentHint: false — the description itself admits a side effect (re-stamping), so an agent may wrongly treat retries as no-ops.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and effect, then constraints, then the next step; almost every clause carries information. Slightly dense/jargonistic ('a later rail's door') but no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the 'NEXT: settlement_proposal_read' guidance covers verification, and the guard/terminal-state explanation covers the main failure mode an agent will hit. The unexplained optional parameters are the remaining gap.

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 only 10% (only 'id' is described), yet the description never explains the nine optional fields (status, accepted_at, currency, amount_cents, payer_tenant_id, consent_grant_id, related_entity_*). It implicitly clarifies that status and accepted_at are server-derived, which is useful, but leaves the bulk of the surface undocumented.

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 and resource ('accept a settlement obligation recorded against your tenant as payee') plus the exact state change ('proposed to accepted', 'stamps accepted_at'). An agent can distinguish it immediately from settlement_proposal_read/list/propose_cross_tenant without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly bounds the action ('recording agreement only: no money moves here, settlement execution is a later rail's door') and names the follow-up ('NEXT: settlement_proposal_read to verify'). It does not say what to do if the row is still in another state or which sibling creates the proposal, but the when/when-not framing is clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources