Cromanion

cromanion_pending

Read-only

Everything on this site that is waiting for a decision: page rewrites the agent wants to make, rules it distilled from real sessions, conversions it spotted but has never counted, and pages your traffic found that the crawl missed. This is the client's actual job in the console, in one call. Rule on an item with cromanion_decide.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteId`	No	Which site this call is about. Only needed when your credential covers more than one — cromanion_grants lists them and says whether it is required. Omitting it with several is refused rather than guessed at.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`hint`	No
`items`	Yes	Everything waiting. Pass an item's kind and id back to cromanion_decide unchanged.
`youMayDecide`	Yes	Your own grants, echoed here so you do not rule on an item you will be refused for.
`notifications`	Yes	Unread notes for your human. Not decisions — the other reason they would open the console.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / siteId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which site this call is about. Only needed when your credential covers more than one — cromanion_grants lists them and says whether it is required. Omitting it with several is refused rather than guessed at.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "hint": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "description": "Everything waiting. Pass an item's kind and id back to cromanion_decide unchanged.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "decisions": {
+            "description": "The verbs THIS item accepts, so you never guess one.",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "detail": {
+            "description": "What you are being asked to allow, in your human's terms.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "evidence": {
+            "description": "Occurrences, sessions, confidence — when there are any.",
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Unique within its kind, not across kinds.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "kind": {
+            "enum": [
+              "edit_genre",
+              "playbook_rule",
+              "goal",
+              "observed_path"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Already resolved — never an id you have to look up.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "kind",
+          "id",
+          "title",
+          "decisions"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "notifications": {
+      "description": "Unread notes for your human. Not decisions — the other reason they would open the console.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "youMayDecide": {
+      "description": "Your own grants, echoed here so you do not rule on an item you will be refused for.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "items",
+    "notifications",
+    "youMayDecide"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuine behavioral context by aggregating all decision-pending item types into one unified view and characterizing it as the client's main console job, which an agent would not infer from annotations alone. It does not cover operational details like pagination or ordering, but the presence of an output schema offsets that.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the core scope is front-loaded, the category list earns its length by concretely defining what 'pending' means, and the closing sentence efficiently points at the decision tool. The middle framing sentence ('client's actual job...') is mildly redundant with the 'one call' idea but adds workflow-priority value.

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 one-parameter, zero-required read-only list tool with an output schema and a fully documented parameter, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing. The description covers what items appear, the site scoping, and the follow-up action, while the schema handles credential-based site selection and the output schema handles return values.

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 description coverage is 100%: the siteId parameter is already thoroughly documented in the schema, including when it is needed (multi-credential cases) and the refusal behavior when omitted. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Everything on this site that is waiting for a decision' — and enumerates four concrete categories (page rewrites, distilled rules, unconverted conversions, crawl-missed pages), making the tool's scope unmistakable. It differentiates from siblings by naming cromanion_decide as the companion action, and the annotation title 'List everything awaiting a decision' reinforces the same purpose.

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?

The description frames this as 'the client's actual job in the console, in one call,' signaling it is the primary entry point for the review workflow, and explicitly routes the next step to cromanion_decide ('Rule on an item with cromanion_decide'). It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use alternatives among the 23 siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

All Cromanion tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource or action—state reads (config, pending, grants, site_status), mutations (set_*, add_goal, decide), and lifecycle steps (open_claim, verify_claim, claim_domain) are clearly separated by detailed descriptions. Even similar-sounding tools like install_check vs site_status are explicitly differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the cromanion_ prefix and snake_case, but the action-object pattern is inconsistent: many are verb_noun (set_mode, verify_claim), while others are bare nouns or verbs (config, pending, crawl, decide, surfaces). This mixed convention is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is at the high end; the server covers a broad domain and each tool has a distinct job, but the set feels heavy with many narrow configuration endpoints (set_brand, set_voice, surfaces, exclusions). It is not bloated enough to be chaotic, but it is borderline.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle from claim/verify/install through goal definition, rules, decisions, measurement, and lead delivery. Minor gaps exist—no account/site deletion, no broader integration management—but agents can accomplish core workflows without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?