Sergio by Serviche

Accept a Sergio suggestion

accept_suggestion

Idempotent

Accepts a Sergio suggestion card, as the card's accept does. action "accept" commits it as a task (optionally with your edited title, details or due, ISO 8601 or null); "accept_no_task" resolves it without a task when the work already happened. A card whose move would send a message, move money, open to the public or grant access is refused with where the owner does it; draft instead (create_draft, or run_suggestion_now on a draft card). Pass the same idempotency_key when retrying; a repeat returns the first answer.

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": {
      "suggestion_id": "<suggestion_id>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "accept_suggestion"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`due`	No
`action`	No		accept
`taskTitle`	No
`suggestion_id`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Your id for this operation (8-128 of A-Z a-z 0-9 . _ : -). Reuse it on every retry of the same operation; use a new one for a new operation.
`taskDescription`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: refusal for message-sending, money-moving, public-opening or access-granting moves, and the fact that a repeat with the same key returns the first answer rather than erroring. It stops short of saying what happens to the card after acceptance or who may accept, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the core action before the exceptions. Parenthetical asides and the semicolon-chained clauses make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the decision surface well: action choice, refusal conditions, retry semantics and the fallback path. Missing is a note on what the tool returns or what state the card ends in.

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 description coverage is only 17%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it explains both action enum values, maps taskTitle/taskDescription/due to 'edited title, details or due', specifies ISO 8601 or null for due, and states the idempotency_key reuse rule. Only suggestion_id is left implicit, which is self-evident.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Specific verb plus resource: 'Accepts a Sergio suggestion card', with the two action variants named and explained. An agent can tell it apart from dismiss_suggestion and decide_company_document_suggestion without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit routing: 'accept' when the work should become a task, 'accept_no_task' when the work already happened, and when the card is refused, draft instead via create_draft or run_suggestion_now. Names concrete alternatives and the conditions that select each.

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

All Sergio by Serviche 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?