Skip to main content
Glama

Playbook

by com.playbook
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
approvedYesWhether the assets are currently approved and externally visible
asset_tokensYesAsset tokens to update
organizationNoWorkspace 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_afterNoISO 8601 timestamp when unapproved assets become approved again

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • 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"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the change controls visibility on shared and published pages and that it requires approval-management permission, both of which are behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and batch scope, followed by the parameter caveat and the permission requirement. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 destructive batch mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the batch limit, the visibility consequence, and the required permission. It leaves unaddressed what happens on partial failure across up to 1000 tokens, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine conditional constraint the schema does not state: approved_after should only be set when unapproving. That refines how the parameter should be used rather than merely restating its type.

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 names a specific verb pair (approve/unapprove) and resource (assets), and adds scope detail: up to 1000 assets and cross-board support. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling update_asset_status, which an agent might reasonably confuse with this tool.

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?

It gives a conditional usage rule for one parameter ('Set approved_after only when unapproving') and states the prerequisite permission, but it never says when to pick this tool over alternatives such as update_asset_status or share_asset. Usage is implied by the effect on shared/published pages rather than stated explicitly.

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

All Playbook 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