Sliq

Set outreach approval

set_outreach_approval

settings is a partial {subtype: requires_approval} map — True holds the message for the user's approval, False auto-sends. Only the subtypes you name change. Each subtype key names a message type (e.g. email_first_message); an unknown key is rejected with the full valid list.

scope:

'this_agent' (default) — change approval for THIS agent only, leaving the account-wide setting and other agents untouched. Needs an agent in context (or an explicit agent_id). This pins the agent to its own approval settings that no longer follow account-wide changes — tell the user that.
'account' — change the account-wide default that governs every agent with no override of its own. An agent that has its own override is unaffected — warn the user that an account change won't reach any agent that has its own override.
'inherit_account' — clear THIS agent's own approval settings so it follows the account-wide setting again. settings is ignored.

Returns {success, scope, settings} — settings is the resulting resolved map for the level written. Dict with success, scope, and resulting settings.

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": "set_outreach_approval"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No	Which level to change. Defaults to 'this_agent'.	this_agent
`agent_id`	No	The agent to change. Defaults to the agent in context.
`settings`	No	Partial map of subtype -> requires_approval. Omit for scope='inherit_account'.
`on_behalf_of`	No	A teammate's email, or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of / description

Previous value: -"An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."New value: +"A teammate's email, or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / agent_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "The agent to change. Defaults to the agent in context."
+}

removedInput schema / properties / task_id

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "The agent/task to change. Defaults to the task in context."
-}

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes much further, disclosing that 'this_agent' pins the agent so it stops following account-wide changes, that 'account' won't reach agents with their own override, that 'inherit_account' ignores `settings`, and that unknown subtype keys are rejected with the full valid list.

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 summary followed by structured, scannable bullet breakdown of `scope`, with the return shape last. It is long, but nearly every sentence carries a distinct constraint or warning; the main cost is a few restatements of the approval concept.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and four optional parameters, the definition covers the return payload inline (`{success, scope, settings}` and what `settings` resolves to), the per-scope side effects, and the validation failure mode. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `settings` is explicitly a partial map where True holds and False auto-sends, only named subtypes change, and an unknown key is rejected. `scope` gets the same treatment. Only `agent_id` and `on_behalf_of` are left entirely to the schema.

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+resource: change what outbound outreach holds for the user's approval before it sends. It also distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling by name-implication (the 'Outbound Approval Settings' block) and from generic UI description by insisting the call actually makes the change.

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 trigger ('Call this when the user asks to review or auto-send a message type'), explicit anti-pattern ('don't just describe the UI'), and a full decision breakdown of the three scope values with the consequence of each. It even prescribes what to tell or warn the user in the two override-related cases.

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

All Sliq tools Inspect

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

Need Help?