StackFast FractWin Expert Brain

Resolve CogentCast Approval

cogentcast_approval_resolve

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read and validate a server-recorded, human-authenticated approval receipt by id. An LLM cannot create approvals, impersonate Robert, change visibility, or unlock public release. Uses the existing CogentCast production service; it does not bypass Studio, mint Chief Editor/Robert approval, substitute model output for human authority, publish publicly, or expose credentials.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`package_id`	Yes
`approval_receipt_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`error`	No
`result`	No
`gateway_receipt`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedAug 13, 2026

addedOutput schema / oneOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "result"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "error"
+    ]
+  }
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / error
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "ok",
-  "result",
-  "gateway_receipt"
-]New value: +[
+  "ok",
+  "gateway_receipt"
+]

AddedAug 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, which already mark it read-only and idempotent, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it relies on a human-authenticated server record, cannot substitute model output for human authority, does not bypass Studio, and does not expose credentials. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The main action is front-loaded and the description is compact overall. There is some redundancy between the second and third sentences, particularly around creating approvals and publishing publicly, but the added security context earns the length.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only validation tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the operation, security boundaries, and non-behaviors well. The main gap is the lack of parameter semantics, especially given the empty schema descriptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter-level documentation. It provides only 'by id' and never explains the distinction between package_id and approval_receipt_id, leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from the parameter names.

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 verb and resource: 'Read and validate a server-recorded, human-authenticated approval receipt by id.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly listing what it does not do, such as creating approvals, impersonating Robert, or publishing publicly.

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?

The description makes the intended use clear: validate an existing approval receipt, but not to create approvals or alter release state. It provides boundary conditions and context for when this tool cannot be used, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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

All StackFast FractWin Expert Brain 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?