Konexium

answer_ask_approval

DestructiveIdempotent

Answer an approval_request returned by ask_konexium. approve:false declines it: the proposed action is cancelled, nothing runs and no credits are spent; the result is the updated Ask response, in the same JSON shape as ask_konexium. approve:true runs nothing either, because an assistant cannot approve spending: it returns {status: "approve_in_konexium", approval_request_id, url, message}, and the person approves at that url. Answering a request that was already answered returns the earlier result.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "approval_request_id": "<approval_request_id>",
      "approve": "<approve>"
    },
    "name": "answer_ask_approval"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`approve`	Yes	false declines the proposed action. true returns the link where the person approves it in Konexium.
`approval_request_id`	Yes	The id of an approval_request item from an ask_konexium response (an output item whose type is approval_request).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: no action runs on either path, no credits are spent on decline, the exact result shape for approve:true is given, and repeat answers return the earlier result. The only shortfall is that the destructiveHint=true framing (a proposed action being cancelled) is not reconciled with 'nothing runs', though that is not a contradiction.

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?

Dense but ordered: identity, decline path, approve path, idempotency note. The semicolon-chained sentences are long, yet every clause carries distinct information and nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies return shapes for both branches plus the already-answered case, and states the credit/side-effect implications. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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 goes further by spelling out the downstream consequences of each boolean value (cancellation vs. a returned approval URL) rather than restating the schema text. It also clarifies that approval_request_id comes from an ask_konexium output item of that type.

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 ('Answer') and resource ('an approval_request returned by ask_konexium'), and ties it directly to the sibling that produces the request. An agent can tell this apart from ask_konexium without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly covers both branches: approve:false declines and cancels with no credits spent, approve:true defers to a human at a returned URL. It also covers the re-answer edge case, so there is essentially no when-to-use inference left.

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

All Konexium 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?