resolve_decision_requestAnswer a pending decision request. Provide your decision as a JSON string. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your API key (m2m_...) | |
| taskId | Yes | Task ID the decision belongs to | |
| decisionId | Yes | Decision request ID to resolve | |
| agentDecisionJson | Yes | Your decision as JSON string |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'Requires authentication' and the requirement to provide a decision as JSON, which are useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or what happens after resolution, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 that front-load the core purpose and provide essential input format and auth requirements. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or 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 simple action tool, the description covers the essential action and input, but it lacks details about return values, validation constraints, or the downstream effect of the resolution. Annotations fill some safety gaps, but the description alone is adequate yet incomplete.
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%, with all four parameters described. The description's mention of 'JSON string' adds no significant meaning beyond the schema's 'agentDecisionJson' description, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'Answer' with the resource 'pending decision request', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_decision_requests. It also specifies the input format (JSON string), making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage when there is a pending decision request to answer, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, mention prerequisites (e.g., first retrieving requests via get_decision_requests), or provide exclusions. Context is inferred but not stated.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there are overlapping pairs like fund_wallet and checkout_wallet_deposit (both create checkout URLs for wallet top-up) and cancel_physical_task vs cancel_task_with_settlement. Detailed descriptions and cross-references help, but the sheer number of similar actions creates misselection risk.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_*, list_*, approve_*). Minor deviations include inconsistent use of 'task' vs 'physical_task' in names and the awkward 'checkout_wallet_deposit', but overall the pattern is predictable.
54 tools is excessive for any server, even a complex platform. While each tool has a role, many are redundant or could be consolidated (e.g., wallet funding tools, multiple approval/cancel variations), making the set feel bloated and hard to navigate.
The tool set covers the full task lifecycle, escrow/direct settlement flows, wallet management, webhooks, support, and administrative functions. The only notable gap is the inability to update task details beyond location (description, deadline, etc.) after dispatch, but core workflows are well-covered.