List approval requests still awaiting a human decision for the signed-in user. Useful for agents picking up an abandoned workflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds that it operates for the signed-in user, which is important context. This is adequate but not additional behavioral depth beyond annotations.
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, clear sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the main action and follows with a use case.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, scope (signed-in user), and a usage context. It could mention the output format but is generally complete given the 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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as no additional info is required.
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 the tool lists approval requests still awaiting a human decision for the signed-in user. It distinguishes from siblings like check_approval_status by implying this is for all pending requests rather than a specific one.
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 explicitly says 'Useful for agents picking up an abandoned workflow,' giving a concrete use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings, leaving some guessing.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose, but check_approval_status and list_pending_approvals both relate to approvals and could be confused if not read carefully. However, descriptions clarify the difference, so disambiguation is good but not perfect.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_, list_, start_). The verbs are clear and the names are predictable.
Five tools is a reasonable number for the domain of permission/approval management. It's well within the 3-15 range and each tool serves a distinct function without being overwhelming.
The tool surface has significant gaps. There is no way to approve or reject an approval request beyond checking its status, nor any tool to create, update, or delete custom tools beyond listing them. The start_test tool seems unrelated to the core domain, leaving incomplete coverage for the apparent purpose.
