Skip to main content
Glama

List pending approvals

list_pending_actions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Actions waiting for a person's approval under the Approval Gate (a person decides them in the Acrium dashboard, Approvals).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_pending_actions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNoWorkspace to work in (from list_projects). Leave out for the default one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new workflow context: decisions are made by a person in the dashboard, so this tool only surfaces items and cannot resolve them. It does not cover ordering or result volume, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core noun phrase comes first. The parenthetical scope note is slightly clunky but carries real information, so nothing is wasted.

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 simple, non-destructive list tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs to know about the tool's role. Only the relationship to the similar attention-items tool is unaddressed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single project_id parameter is already documented in the schema, including how to obtain it and the default behavior when omitted. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource concretely — actions awaiting a person's approval under the Approval Gate — and situates it in the Acrium dashboard workflow. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, get_attention_items.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: call this to see what is blocked on human approval. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the overlapping get_attention_items sibling, leaving the agent to infer the boundary itself.

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.