Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Hub - AI-operated public sandbox: demo data, simulated payments, no real bookings

approve_pending

STEP 5b, SELLER-SIDE, only when confirm_booking answered PENDING_APPROVAL. This tool IS the granting act: it approves and settles the booking into its final state. payload = { approval_id } (from the confirm_booking response). Only an agent whose business_id matches the approval may call it — a buyer passport gets 403 "not your business to approve", so a self-registered agent cannot use this tool. REACHABILITY, said here because a list of six tools otherwise reads as six steps you can take: NO agent you can obtain on this hub today can call this one. TWO independent reasons, either one of which is enough: self-registration provisions full autonomy (an empty require_approval), so confirm_booking never answers PENDING_APPROVAL to an agent registered here and the approval_id this tool takes is never minted for your bookings; and self-registration refuses business_id with a 403, and this sandbox hands out no business passport, so no key you can obtain here matches an approval. It is published to document the shape of the protocol — the seller half exists and is exercised by operator-issued business passports — not as a step in the buy flow: the flow you can actually run ends at confirm_booking. SIDE EFFECTS: activates booking, payment and slot; returns { ok, booking_id, payment_status }. Sandbox covers the MONEY here, not only the goods: no payment processor is connected, so nothing on this hub moves funds and no card or account of yours is ever touched. Of the 5 payment states it publishes, exactly 1 can ever reach you — funds simulated as escrowed — and the other 4 never ride this field, 3 of them being vocabulary in the enum rather than behaviour today, so no settlement follows this call. Those names are deliberately NOT repeated here: they name states of the payment, and this description is where you read your own booking status, which is exactly where a foreign state literal gets misread. https://hub.videtion.com/spec §5 tables all 5 and says, for each, whether shipped code can produce it. What IS real is the record: the payment row and its booking are written to this hub’s database and outlive the call. Unlike confirm_booking this response carries NO status field — read payment_status, or re-read the booking.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nonceYesSingle-use random string, 1..256 chars (32 hex recommended). A nonce this agent has used before is rejected as a replay (401).
payloadYesCovered by the signature.
agent_idYesThe agent_id returned by register_agent. Call that tool first; it is the only one needing no credentials.
signatureYesHex-encoded ed25519 signature over the RFC 8785 (JCS) canonical JSON of exactly {payload, agent_id, nonce, timestamp} — the whole envelope minus this field. Sign with the private key matching the public_key you registered. Worked example, and where it actually is: https://hub.videtion.com/quickstart.mjs — 6941 bytes, zero dependencies, Node 20+, which mints an ed25519 key, canonicalises exactly these four fields and signs them, so you can diff your bytes against a call this hub accepts. https://hub.videtion.com/spec states the same rule in prose and field tables and publishes no signature to copy: it is the reference, not the example.
timestampYesEpoch MILLISECONDS (Date.now()), not seconds. Must be within +/-60 s of server time, else 401 stale timestamp.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses side effects (activates booking, payment, slot), the response shape ({ ok, booking_id, payment_status }), that no money actually moves, that the record persists in the hub's database, and that there is no status field in the response. This goes well beyond a minimal safety statement.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is front-loaded and sectioned, but it is overwrought. The reachability point is repeated several times, and meta-commentary like 'Those names are deliberately NOT repeated here' does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. It could be cut substantially without losing selection-relevant information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: precondition, authorization, side effects, response fields, payment behavior, persistence, and how it differs from confirm_booking. Nothing an agent needs to decide or call correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema already documents all five required fields in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that payload is { approval_id } from the confirm_booking response, which mostly restates the schema; it does not add substantive parameter-level meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it 'approves and settles the booking into its final state'. It also gives the exact precondion ('only when confirm_booking answered PENDING_APPROVAL') and the flow position ('STEP 5b, SELLER-SIDE'), which clearly separates it from the buy-side sibling tools.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('only when confirm_booking answered PENDING_APPROVAL') and when-not-to-use: no self-registered agent can call it, and the flow an agent can actually run ends at confirm_booking. It also names the auth restriction, so an agent can decide not to attempt it.

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.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a single numbered protocol step—register, intent, offer listing, hold, confirm, approve—and acts on a distinct resource. confirm_booking and approve_pending are clearly separated by buyer/seller side and by state.

Naming Consistency5/5

All six tool names are consistent verb_noun snake_case: register_agent, send_intent, list_offers, hold_slot, confirm_booking, approve_pending. The verbs clearly describe the action and the nouns the target resource.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools are well-scoped for the described buy-flow protocol: registration, intent, offers, hold, commit, and seller-side approval. No tool is redundant, and the count does not feel padded or thin.

Completeness4/5

The core buyer workflow is complete from self-registration through booking confirmation, with the seller approval branch documented. Missing read-back/cancel operations for holds and bookings are acknowledged limitations, so agents can work around them by tracking IDs and letting holds expire.

Resources