human_bridge_requestHuman approval/review. Agent peer: agent_collaboration_request. Known target: prepare_outbound_invitation. No contact/write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes | Public, non-sensitive handoff need. | |
| authorization | No | Optional human authorization reference; this field does not itself grant authority. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "request": "Escalate this bounded technical result for human review."
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / authorization / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional human authorization reference; this field does not itself grant authority."Input schema / properties / authorization / maxLengthAdded value: +500Input schema / properties / authorization / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / request / descriptionAdded value: +"Public, non-sensitive handoff need."Input schema / properties / request / maxLengthAdded value: +2000Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Structured JSON result returned in structuredContent.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds only 'No contact/write,' which is consistent but largely redundant with those hints, and it does not discuss authorization, rate limits, or other operational context.
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?
The description is very short and front-loads the main purpose and routing clues. It is efficient, though its fragmentary phrasing slightly reduces clarity.
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?
Annotations and schema descriptions cover safety and parameters, and an output schema exists. The description still leaves usage conditions implicit, making it only adequately complete for an agent deciding when and how to call this tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the structured fields already provide.
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 states 'Human approval/review' and names sibling relationships, but it lacks a specific verb-resource phrase such as 'request human review of a bounded result.' An agent can infer the purpose, but it is not crisply stated.
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?
It routes the agent by naming 'agent_collaboration_request' as the agent peer and 'prepare_outbound_invitation' as a known target, and it excludes contact/write. However, it does not explicitly say when this tool should be chosen over those alternatives.
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.