list_approvalsList workflow checkpoints waiting on you, soonest deadline first, with which step is paused and when it runs out. Defaults to the pending ones. Requires authentication and the workflows:read scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Which lifecycle status to list. Defaults to pending -- the ones still waiting for an answer. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "text": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "text"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses meaningful behavior: ordering by soonest deadline, which checkpoint is paused, when it expires, defaulting to pending, and the auth scope. This enriches the agent's model of the tool's behavior and constraints.
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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and behavior, then add scope requirements and defaulting. Every clause carries useful information with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description fully covers what it returns, how it is ordered, what it includes, the default filter, and required permissions. No critical information is missing.
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 coverage for the single parameter is 100%, so the schema already fully explains the status enum and its pending default. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the default, which the schema already contains.
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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('List workflow checkpoints waiting on you') and adds sorting and content details. This distinguishes it clearly from decision-oriented siblings like decide_approval and from generic list tools like list_workflows.
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?
The description gives clear contextual guidance: it lists pending checkpoints by default and states the required authentication and workflows:read scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the reading context is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to call this tool.
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.