Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mondovo

by com.mondovo.app
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Approve a post or request changes

review_post
Idempotent

Approve a social post in team review, or request changes, as the connected person — exactly as pressing Approve or Request changes in the review screen. Only the brand's approvers may (anyone who can edit its posts, or a person named as an approver); others are refused and can comment_on_post_review instead. Pass the post_id and version_id from list_review_queue: a decision is on the version that was read, and is refused if a newer one was uploaded since. A note says why (expected with request_changes). Only do this when the user has decided — never approve on your own judgement. Once every required approval is in, the post can be queued with queue_post_for_publishing; the reply's approval.can_be_queued says so.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoWhy — what to change, or a word with the approval.
post_idYesThe post id from list_review_queue.
brand_idYesBrand workspace id from list_brands
decisionYes
user_goalNoOptional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. "add a page so customers can book tables"). No names, emails or other personal details.
version_idYesThe post's `version_id` from list_review_queue — the version being decided on.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_goal
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. \"add a page so customers can book tables\"). No names, emails or other personal details.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing the authorization model, the stale-version refusal rule, and the expectation that a note accompanies request_changes. It also names the return field `approval.can_be_queued`, which the annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with what the tool does and the UI analogy, then permissions, then parameter provenance, then the workflow handoff. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description still tells the agent what the reply contains (`approval.can_be_queued`). Combined with permission rules, version constraints, and the next step (queue_post_for_publishing), nothing needed to call this correctly as a mutation 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 already 83%, but the description still adds real semantics: version_id must be the version actually read and a newer upload causes refusal, and note is expected for request_changes. It does not address brand_id or user_goal, leaving those 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 pair (approve / request changes) on a specific resource (a social post in team review) and anchors it to the UI action it mirrors. An agent can immediately distinguish it from comment_on_post_review and queue_post_for_publishing.

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?

Gives explicit when/when-not: only brand approvers may call it, others are refused and should use comment_on_post_review; only call after the user has decided, never on the agent's own judgement. It also names the exact prerequisite chain (list_review_queue to get post_id/version_id, queue_post_for_publishing afterwards).

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

All Mondovo toolsInspect
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