approve_content_assetApprove a submitted owned revision and attest to its exact content hash. Requires marketing:approve, separate from draft authority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| asset_id | Yes | Full UUID from the matching list tool. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool requires specific authorization and attests to a content hash, implying a write operation with verification. However, it does not explain post-approval effects (e.g., status change, workflow progression).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two well-structured sentences: first states the action and its precise meaning, second specifies the authorization requirement. No wasted words, and critical information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (2 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core action and auth but omits explanation for the 'notes' parameter. This leaves a gap for an agent: why would notes be provided, and what is their impact? The description is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only asset_id described). The description adds that asset_id refers to 'a submitted owned revision', which aligns with the schema hint 'Full UUID from the matching list tool'. The 'notes' parameter lacks any description, leaving the agent uncertain about its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action 'Approve' with the specific resource 'content asset', and distinguishes from siblings like 'reject_content_asset' by mentioning 'submitted owned revision' and 'exact content hash'. The permission clarification further differentiates it from other approve tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly specifies the required permission 'marketing:approve, separate from draft authority', guiding the agent on when to use this tool. However, it does not provide direct exclusions or alternatives for cases where the user lacks permission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action, with detailed descriptions that clearly separate overlapping domains (e.g., consulting vs. marketing vs. outreach). Even within the same domain, tools like 'create_consulting_deliverable' and 'create_consulting_document_revision' are unambiguous due to their specific nouns.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., 'create_invoice', 'get_deal', 'list_agents'). The few exceptions like 'locus_determine_from_scores' still adhere to the verb_noun structure and do not break the pattern.
With 124 tools, the server is massively over-scoped for typical MCP use. The tool count far exceeds the '50+ extreme mismatch' threshold, making it nearly impossible for an agent to efficiently navigate or select the right tool without extensive context. Even a large platform should consolidate or expose fewer tools.
The tool surface covers CRUD and lifecycle operations across at least 10 domains (sales, consulting, marketing, outreach, accounting, workflows, ticketing, API keys, feedback, platform metrics). Each domain appears to have no obvious gaps—e.g., invoicing includes create, update, send, mark paid, void; ticketing includes create, update, archive, dependencies, batch, scenarios, validation.