Playbook

Set asset approval

set_asset_approval

DestructiveIdempotent

Approve or unapprove up to 1000 assets, including assets from different boards. Set approved_after only when unapproving to schedule when the assets become visible again. This controls visibility on shared and published pages and requires approval-management permission.

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": {
      "asset_tokens": "<asset_tokens>",
      "approved": "<approved>"
    },
    "name": "set_asset_approval"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`approved`	Yes	Whether the assets are currently approved and externally visible
`asset_tokens`	Yes	Asset tokens to update
`organization`	No	Workspace slug, as returned by list_organizations. Omit it when the account has a single workspace — it is then resolved from your token. Pass it only when the account has several, or when you mean a workspace other than the obvious one.
`approved_after`	No	ISO 8601 timestamp when unapproved assets become approved again

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

removedInput schema / properties / context

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): \"Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization.\"",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "asset_tokens",
-  "approved",
-  "context"
-]New value: +[
+  "asset_tokens",
+  "approved"
+]

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the real-world effect (controls visibility on shared and published pages), the permission requirement, and an ordering constraint on approved_after. That is meaningful context for a destructive batch mutation; it stops short of covering partial-failure behavior across a 1000-item batch.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the conditional rule, then the side effect and permission. No filler or redundancy.

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 4-parameter batch mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers intent, permission, side effects, and the key conditional. The only gap is behavior on partial success or invalid tokens within a large batch.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of the 1000 cap and the approved_after semantics largely restates the schema's maxItems and parameter description, adding little beyond it.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb pair (approve/unapprove) and resource (assets), plus scope details: up to 1000 assets and cross-board selection. It does not name a sibling such as update_asset_status or update_asset to draw the boundary explicitly, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a concrete conditional rule (set approved_after only when unapproving to schedule re-visibility) and a prerequisite (approval-management permission). It does not say when to prefer this over adjacent tools like update_asset_status, but the use context is clear.

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

All Playbook 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?