Reflecto

This connector has been deprecated

This connector has been replaced by Reflecto.

Request approval

request_approval

Ask the user a question on their phone and get a tap back — 2 to 4 answer choices (default ["Approve","Deny"]). Use this when you need the user's decision before a consequential or irreversible action and they may be away from this conversation (e.g. confirming a deploy, a destructive operation, or a purchase). Returns immediately with a request_id; poll check_reply with it to get the answer — the user may take minutes to respond.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`choices`	No	2–4 answer labels rendered as buttons. Default ["Approve","Deny"]. Each ≤48 chars (server-enforced).
`question`	Yes	The question shown on the user's phone. Keep it short and specific; ≤1000 chars (server-enforced).
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional dedup key. Omit and the server derives one from the content, so duplicate calls don't double-prompt.
`expires_in_seconds`	No	Seconds until the ask expires (60–86400, server default 600).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes
`created`	Yes	false when an identical ask was already pending (idempotent duplicate)
`expires_at`	Yes	Unix seconds
`request_id`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description clearly discloses the asynchronous behavior beyond what annotations provide: it returns immediately with a request_id, requires polling check_reply, and the user may take minutes to respond. It also clarifies that the tool itself only asks, it does not perform the consequential action.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but highly efficient. Each sentence earns its place: the first defines the core behavior, the second gives usage context, and the third describes the asynchronous contract. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 an asynchronous approval tool, the description is complete: it covers the core behavior, when to use it, the expected flow, and the response pattern. The output schema and parameter schema carry the remaining structured details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description adds valuable semantics by explaining the default choices, the 2-4 answer constraint, and the request_id/polling flow, which enriches the meaning of the question and choices parameters beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description states a specific action: asking the user a question on their phone and receiving a tap back, with 2-4 answer choices. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling notification/reminder tools by framing this as a decision gate before consequential actions.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: when the user's decision is needed before a consequential or irreversible action and they may be away from the conversation. It provides concrete examples like deploy confirmation, destructive operations, and purchases, though it does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use cases or alternative sibling tools.

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

All Reflecto tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: scheduling vs cancelling reminders, pushing vs ringing a phone, sending vs receiving files/shared items, and requesting vs polling approvals. The only close pair, send_notification and remind_me, is clearly separated by immediacy vs future scheduling, and the descriptions reinforce the boundary.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: cancel_reminder, check_reply, get_shared_items, list_devices, request_approval, send_file, send_notification. Minor possessive forms like find_my_phone and remind_me still fit the imperative verb-first style without creating confusion.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well within the ideal range and each one earns its place in a personal-device integration server. The surface covers notifications, reminders, approvals, shared items, file delivery, device discovery, and phone location without redundant or filler tools.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: reminders can be scheduled and cancelled, approvals can be requested and polled, notifications can be sent, and shared items can be read incrementally. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to cancel a pending approval and no update mechanism for reminders, but these are workable and the server is explicitly stateless about some of them.

Resources

Need Help?