RetailHardHat

Decide Budget Approval Request

decide_budget_approval_request

Record the current human user's explicit approve/reject decision for a budget. Requires exact-change review and being an assigned current-step approver. Amount ceilings restrict approvals, not rejections; subsequent approval steps still apply. MCP approval requirements are configurable by the organization administrator; business workflow approvals always apply.

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": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "decide_budget_approval_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`requestId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral rules: exact-change review, current-step approver assignment, approval-only amount ceilings, and subsequent approval steps. It also explains the distinction between configurable MCP approval requirements and always-applicable business workflow approvals. No annotation contradiction is present.

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?

The description is four focused sentences with no filler. Critical constraints, such as assigned-approver status and amount-ceiling behavior, are front-loaded and directly useful.

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?

Given that annotations cover mutation safety traits and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete for an approval-decision tool. It explains workflow prerequisites and approval limits, though it could say more about the requestId and notes parameters.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for parameter semantics. It only implies the approve/reject action and does not explain requestId, the nested data object, or notes, leaving key parameter meaning undocumented.

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 and resource: recording the current human user's approve/reject decision for a budget. It clearly distinguishes the action from generic budget edits, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as decide_invoice_approval_request or submit_budget_approval_request.

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 clear prerequisites: exact-change review and being an assigned current-step approver. It also clarifies that amount ceilings restrict approvals but not rejections, and that subsequent approval steps still apply. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the 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 RetailHardHat 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?