approve a pending message for sending. requires send scope.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "approve_message"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | message ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds a concrete prerequisite (send scope required for authorization) that annotations do not cover, which is valuable. It does not say what happens after approval, whether it is reversible, or whether approval can be undone, which matters for a destructive-flagged operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no waste: the action first, then the prerequisite. Everything is front-loaded and nothing is filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and a clear destructive annotation, the essentials (action, precondition of pending state, required scope) are present. What is missing is outcome information – the state transition after approval and what failures look like – so it is adequate rather than complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter ('id', uuid, 'message ID') is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds a qualifying detail – the message must be pending – which constrains the valid id values, but gives no format or origin guidance beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'approve a pending message for sending.' That clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mark_message_sent and reject_message, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives to route the agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the word 'pending' – the tool applies only to messages awaiting approval – and the 'requires send scope' sentence is a real prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so the agent must infer that approve is the correct action rather than mark_message_sent or bulk_message_action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.