Skip to main content
Glama

Ogen

by com.ogenhq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Register an approver

register_approver

Tell Ogen where to reach a person by name, so a held action can be sent to them. Record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe approver's name — must match a register_action approver value exactly.
emailYesThe approver's email address.
replaceNoRequired (true) to repoint an existing name onto a DIFFERENT email — the old address is notified, and any passkeys set up under this name stop working. Omit when the email hasn't changed.
revoke_passkeysNotrue to turn off every passkey this approver has set up (a lost device, a person leaving). They can set up a new one from their next emailed link.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / replace / description
      Previous value: -"Required (true) to repoint an existing name onto a DIFFERENT email — the old address is notified. Omit when the email hasn't changed."New value: +"Required (true) to repoint an existing name onto a DIFFERENT email — the old address is notified, and any passkeys set up under this name stop working. Omit when the email hasn't changed."
    • addedInput schema / properties / revoke_passkeys
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "true to turn off every passkey this approver has set up (a lost device, a person leaving). They can set up a new one from their next emailed link.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that registering an approver affects held actions and that using 'replace' notifies the old address and invalidates passkeys. It also discloses that setting revoke_passkeys has permanent effects. This is strong disclosure of side effects and consequences, going beyond the schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a bit verbose: 'Tell Ogen where to reach a person by name, so a held action can be sent to them. Record.' could be tightened. The critical side-effect information is embedded in the parameter descriptions rather than the main description, which is fine but not the most front-loaded structure. It's acceptable but not concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains what happens: the purpose, the side effects of replace and revoke_passkeys, and the relationship to held actions. The main gap is lack of return value info, but since there's no output schema, the description could mention what is returned, but it's not critical for invocation. Overall, a solid definition.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning for parameters; it doesn't elaborate on the semantics beyond what the schema says. However, the description reinforces the critical behavior of 'replace' and 'revoke_passkeys' consistently. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb 'register' and the resource 'approver,' and clarifies its purpose: to tell Ogen where to reach a person so a held action can be sent. However, it is somewhat verbose and could be more direct about the core action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like register_action or set_contact, though the name itself helps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool (when you need to record where to reach an approver) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The brief 'Record.' at the end is not helpful. Without explicit exclusions or alternative routing, an agent may struggle to choose between this and register_action or set_contact.

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

All Ogen toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources