Skip to main content
Glama

busabase

by com.busabase
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Review a Change Request (rejected = request changes, not terminal)

change_request_review

Review a Change Request (rejected = request changes, not terminal)

This records a HUMAN decision. Never call it unless the user explicitly asked for this specific verdict on these specific change requests. Summarising a change request for the user is not permission to approve it. Reviewing does not merge — approve first, then merge separately. A rejected verdict asks the submitter for changes and leaves the change request open; to end it for good use change_requests_close.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoExplanation shown to the submitter. Required in practice for a rejection.
verdictYesThe human's decision.
playbookNoOptional. The playbook you are following, as `kind:nodeId[:key]` from playbooks_search (e.g. `prompt:nod_123:log-visit`). Recorded on the change request so the person can see which playbook produced it.
targetSpaceIdNoBusabase space id. Call auth_verify first and ask the user which space to use when more than one is returned.
changeRequestIdsYesChange request ids. One id is fine; up to 100 per call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / playbook
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The playbook you are following, as `kind:nodeId[:key]` from playbooks_search (e.g. `prompt:nod_123:log-visit`). Recorded on the change request so the person can see which playbook produced it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say the tool is not read-only and not destructive, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds crucial nuances: the action records a human decision, a 'rejected' verdict requests changes and leaves the change request open, and reviewing does not merge. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the key caveat (rejected = request changes, not terminal) and every subsequent sentence earns its place by preventing a real misuse. The repetition of the title is minor and serves as an anchor for the most important semantic distinction. Overall it is tight, well-structured, and free of fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential invocation context: it records a human decision, requires explicit user intent, does not merge, handles rejected as non-terminal, and names the sibling tool for terminal closure. The remaining parameter-level details are adequately covered by the input schema, so the description is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a useful description. The tool description adds extra semantic value by explaining what 'rejected' means behaviorally ('asks the submitter for changes and leaves the change request open') and by reinforcing that 'reason' is required in practice for rejection. This goes slightly beyond the schema without duplicating it.

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 description clearly states this tool records a human decision on specific change requests, with 'approved' or 'rejected' verdicts. It also distinguishes itself from related operations by noting that review does not merge and that rejection is not terminal, explicitly naming change_requests_close as the terminal alternative. This gives an agent a precise, differentiated understanding of the tool's role.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: never call unless the user explicitly requested this verdict on these change requests, and summarizing is not permission to approve. It also explains the follow-up sequence—approve first, then merge separately—and directs the agent to change_requests_close when a change request should be ended permanently. This is exactly the kind of usage context an agent needs.

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

All busabase 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