Check the status of a pending approval request by REF number. Use this between retries of a tool call that is pending approval — do NOT call the original tool again to check status, that will create a duplicate approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | REF number returned from a prior tool call that required approval. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the warning about duplicate approvals if the original tool is called, which is valuable context. However, it does not detail the response format or possible statuses, but given annotations, this is sufficient.
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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use it (after a pending approval) and how to avoid misuse. It could optionally mention expected statuses, but is largely complete for its simplicity.
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 a clear description for the 'reference' parameter. The description mentions 'REF number' but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'Check the status of a pending approval request by REF number,' specifying the verb 'check' and the resource 'approval request' with the identifier. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_pending_approvals' which lists all approvals.
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?
Explicitly instructs to 'Use this between retries of a tool call that is pending approval' and warns against calling the original tool again to check status, preventing duplicate approvals.
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.
