Sergio by Serviche

Approve or reject a drafted article edit

review_handbook_edit

Idempotent

Approves (the draft becomes the article's text) or rejects a pending drafted version of an article (version_id from draft_handbook_edit or read entity sop_versions), as the article's Approve and Reject do. The same decision again answers success; the other decision on a reviewed version is refused. Pass the same idempotency_key when retrying.

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": {
      "sop_id": "<sop_id>",
      "versionId": "<versionId>",
      "action": "<action>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "review_handbook_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes
`sop_id`	Yes
`versionId`	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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare mutation, idempotency and non-destructiveness, yet the description adds real substance: what approve actually changes, that repeating the same decision returns success, and that the opposite decision on an already-reviewed version is refused. It omits who is allowed to decide and whether a rejected draft is discarded or returned for revision, which matters for a state-changing tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the two outcomes, then the state-machine rule, then the retry instruction. The clause 'as the article's Approve and Reject do' is the only slight drag on density.

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?

Covers purpose, the reviewed-state constraint, idempotency and where the version id comes from, which is most of what a four-required-parameter mutation needs. Without an output schema, the response shape is only hinted at ('answers success'), and permission requirements are unaddressed.

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?

With only 25% schema coverage, the description usefully compensates: it explains the effect of each action value, gives provenance for the version id, and restates the idempotency-key reuse rule. Minor friction: it calls the field version_id while the schema requires versionId, and sop_id is never characterized.

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?

Names both operations precisely (approve makes the draft the article's text; reject) on a specific resource (a pending drafted version of an article), and points to where the target id comes from (draft_handbook_edit or read entity sop_versions). An agent can distinguish this from draft_handbook_edit and edit_handbook_article without opening any 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?

Establishes the prerequisite (a pending drafted version produced by draft_handbook_edit) and the retry rule (same idempotency_key). It stops short of stating when not to use it — e.g. that no draft means there is nothing to review — leaving that to inference.

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?