Pending actions that require this account's co-signer approval. Use when this agent is a co-signer on another account.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_pending_cosigner_approvals"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries (default 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the important scoping rule that results are limited to approvals where this account acts as co-signer for another account. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, what fields are returned, ordering, or whether expired/stale pending actions are included.
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, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the usage condition. Nothing is redundant and every clause adds information.
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, one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a conceptual level and when to reach for it. The remaining gap is that the shape of returned pending actions is unspecified, but that is minor at this complexity.
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 is a single optional parameter, 'limit', and schema coverage is 100% with the default of 10 documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about paging behavior or what happens at the limit boundary, so the schema does all the work; baseline 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 first sentence names the resource precisely: pending actions requiring this account's co-signer approval. The second sentence clarifies the caller's role, which distinguishes it from related siblings like list_incoming_cosigner_invites or list_cosigner_memberships. It is clear, though the listing verb itself is only implied by the noun phrase.
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 supplies an explicit usage condition — 'Use when this agent is a co-signer on another account' — which is the key context an agent needs to decide to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. list_incoming_cosigner_invites for invites vs. approve_cosigner_action for acting on a result) or any when-not condition.
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.