Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Widely

by com.widely-mobile
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Approve a membership upgrade

approve_membership_request
DestructiveIdempotent

Approves one open membership upgrade request and charges the shared wallet the prorated upgrade, through the same plan charge as a direct upgrade. Every client charges nothing until confirm is true. The preview includes this wording, and confirming records it for a consumer account: Start now. I understand I lose my right to cancel once the service is fully provided, and I pay for what I use if I cancel earlier. idempotency_key repeats the same result instead of charging again. Only an account admin can approve.

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": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "approve_membership_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoOmitted returns a preview on every client. True charges.
request_idYes
idempotency_keyNoRepeats the same result instead of charging again.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this destructive, idempotent and open-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: the wallet is charged a prorated amount via the same plan charge as a direct upgrade, admins only, and the consent wording from the preview is recorded for a consumer account on confirmation. What it omits is failure behavior, such as insufficient wallet balance or an already-closed request.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The lead sentence is front-loaded and effective, but the embedded consent quote ('Start now. I understand I lose my right to cancel...') is long, grammatically tangled and sits mid-paragraph, burying the idempotency and admin facts. Trimming the quoted legal text to a summary would sharpen the whole definition.

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, wallet-charging mutation with no output schema, the description covers charge amount, preview-vs-charge, auth requirement and idempotency, which is substantial. It stops short of describing what is returned or what happens on rejection or partial failure, leaving an agent to guess the outcome of an unsuccessful approve.

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 coverage is 67% (request_id has no description), so the description must add some meaning, and it does: it clarifies that nothing is charged on any client until confirm is true and that idempotency_key repeats the same result instead of charging again. It does not clarify the format or source of request_id, which is the one undocumented parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Approves one open membership upgrade request') and immediately explains the financial consequence ('charges the shared wallet the prorated upgrade'). It separates itself in spirit from decline_membership_request and cancel_membership_request, but never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 clear operating context: the request must be open, only an account admin can approve, and omitting confirm yields a preview while true charges. It does not explicitly route the agent to decline_membership_request or cancel_membership_request for the alternative cases, so exclusions are left implicit.

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

All Widely toolsInspect
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