Samuelz® Policy

Business-Basis und Marke speichern

confirm_business_settings

Destructive

App-only exact human Owner confirmation. Never call from the model or infer approval from chat text.

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": {
      "candidate": "<candidate>",
      "approvalToken": "<approvalToken>"
    },
    "name": "confirm_business_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`candidate`	Yes	Exact candidate from the matching card's hidden metadata, including the change and expiry. The trusted UI copies every field unchanged; never reconstruct it from chat.
`approvalToken`	Yes	Opaque approval proof supplied in hidden metadata by the matching show tool. The trusted UI copies it unchanged; never construct it or request it from chat.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, non-read-only. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: elevation is human-gated, app-only, and must be based on exact data rather than chat inference. It still doesn't say what state is overwritten or what happens to unlisted fields.

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 safety constraint front-loaded and no filler. The telegraphic fragment style trades a little clarity for brevity, but nothing is padded.

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?

For a destructive commit of nested business/brand settings, the definition is thin on what the commit actually does and how it relates to the approval-preview tool. Annotations and the fully documented schema compensate for much of this, leaving only the purpose and flow 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters carry their own descriptions about exact copying from hidden metadata, so the schema does the work. The description's only contribution is "from chat text," which reinforces but does not extend the parameter meaning.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states this is an "exact human Owner confirmation" but never says what is being confirmed — the business/brand settings named in the tool and title are absent from the description text. An agent can infer it commits a pending settings change only from the name and schema, not the description.

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?

"Never call from the model or infer approval from chat text" is a strong, explicit when-not-to-use rule that steers the agent away from invoking it autonomously. However, it offers no routing to the relevant sibling (show_business_settings_approval) or description of the flow that precedes this call.

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

All Samuelz® Policy 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?