Skip to main content
Glama

SalesHookAI

Approve timesheet

approveTimesheet
Idempotent

Approves a submitted timesheet by its id, as listed in the time tracking summary (owner/admin only).

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": {
      "timesheetId": "<timesheetId>"
    },
    "name": "approveTimesheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoOptional note
timesheetIdYesID of the timesheet to approve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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 this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent write, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It does add the owner/admin permission requirement and the source of the identifier, which the annotations do not cover. It omits side effects such as notifications or what happens to the timesheet's state afterward.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the qualifiers parenthesized afterward. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity leaves room for one more clause of guidance.

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 two-parameter write tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, identifier source and permission scope. Only post-approval behavior and the optional notes parameter are left undocumented, which are minor gaps.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description only reinforces where the timesheetId comes from. The optional 'notes' parameter is not mentioned at all in the description, so no meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Approves') and resource ('a submitted timesheet by its id'), so the action and target are unambiguous and distinct from the sibling rejectTimesheet. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, but the operation is clear enough to select without opening the schema.

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 real usage context: the id comes from the time tracking summary, and the caller must be an owner/admin. What's missing is guidance on when to approve versus reject, or any precondition such as the timesheet needing to be in a submitted state.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources