Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Brix Digital Signage

by com.brixsignage
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Approve, reject or withdraw content

review_approval
Destructive

Approve, reject or withdraw one pending approval request.

When to use:

  • This connection's person is an approver and a request is waiting (list_items kind approvals; read it with get_items kind approvals).

  • Cancelling a request that is no longer wanted, or one left behind by a person who has gone: withdraw.

When NOT to use:

  • Editing the content: use update_items (an edit opens a new request).

What to know:

  • approve airs the content where it is assigned, at once; reject keeps it off screens; withdraw closes the request with no decision and puts the content back to draft. Each is final.

  • approve and reject need this connection's person to be an approver in the request's chain; withdraw needs the requester or such an approver. Otherwise the call is refused.

Parameters:

  • approvalId: an ar_… id from list_items kind approvals.

  • reason: required with reject and shown to the requester word for word; with approve, an optional note; ignored with withdraw.

  • Example: {approvalId:"ar_12", decision:"reject", reason:"Price on slide 2 is wrong."}.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoWhy.
decisionYesApprove, reject or withdraw.
approvalIdYesApproval request id.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoThe request with its new state and who decided.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / decision / description
      Previous value: -"Approve or reject."New value: +"Approve, reject or withdraw."
    • changedInput schema / properties / decision / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "approve",
-  "reject"
-]New value: +[
+  "approve",
+  "reject",
+  "withdraw"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / approvalId / description
      Previous value: -"Approval request id (ar_…), from list_items kind approvals."New value: +"Approval request id."
    • changedInput schema / properties / decision / description
      Previous value: -"approve or reject."New value: +"Approve or reject."
    • changedInput schema / properties / reason / description
      Previous value: -"Why. Required to reject (shown to the requester); optional note to approve."New value: +"Why."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out what each decision does to the content (approve airs it immediately, reject keeps it off screens, withdraw returns it to draft), that all three are final, and the exact authorization requirement per decision. It also documents the refusal behavior when the caller lacks a role in the chain.

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, then cleanly sectioned into when/when-not/what-to-know/parameters. Every line carries information, though the heading scaffolding is slightly heavier than a three-parameter tool strictly needs.

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

Completeness5/5

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 an output schema available, the description covers effects, finality, authorization, and parameter sourcing. An agent has everything needed to choose a decision correctly or know it will be refused.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions are one-word ('Why.', 'Approve, reject or withdraw.'), so the description does the real work: it identifies approvalId as an ar_… id sourced from list_items kind approvals and explains that reason is required and shown verbatim for reject, optional for approve, and ignored for withdraw.

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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb set (approve, reject, withdraw) and a precisely scoped resource (one pending approval request). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like create_items, update_items, and delete_items.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, with the alternative named (update_items, because an edit opens a new request) and the prerequisite stated (this connection's person must be an approver). Nothing is left to inference.

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

All Brix Digital Signage toolsInspect
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