RetailHardHat

Get Bid Approval Request

get_bid_approval_request

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a bid approval request, its steps and actions. 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>"
    },
    "name": "get_bid_approval_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`requestId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description usefully adds that the response includes steps and actions, but the approval-configuration sentence is ambiguous for a read-only tool (it is unclear whether it affects what is returned or is background policy info). No mention of not-found behavior or permissions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is on-topic but sits oddly for a read tool and could be read as noise, keeping it from a 5.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple single-parameter fetch. However, the description leaves the requestId sourcing and the read-vs-find boundary unaddressed, and the approval-policy sentence introduces more ambiguity than clarity for this operation.

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?

The single requestId parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — not where to source it, nor what the UUID identifies. The format/pattern constraints only tell the agent the type, not the semantics, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the returned scope ("its steps and actions"), so the agent knows this is the detail-fetch for a single bid approval request rather than a search. It never names the obvious siblings (find_bid_approval_request, get_approval_status, get_bid_details) to draw the boundary explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus find_bid_approval_request or get_approval_status, and no prerequisite stated for obtaining the requestId. The second sentence covers approval-policy configuration, which is domain context rather than usage guidance. The agent must infer the 'call after you have an ID from a find/list' workflow.

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?