Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Veynod

by io.github.veynod
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Request Human Review

request_human_review

Explicitly hand a proposal or task to a human operator.

Agents cannot apply proposals; this tool records a HUMAN_REVIEW_REQUESTED
timeline event and returns the exact human action endpoint. For tasks it is
also useful before a human approval/rejection decision.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "request_human_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes
kindYes
noteNo
idempotency_keyNoOptional. Retries with the same key and arguments within 24 h replay the first result (replayed=true) without a second write; a different body with the same key is idempotency_key_reused.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only indicate that the tool is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds meaningful behavior: it records a HUMAN_REVIEW_REQUESTED timeline event and returns the exact human action endpoint. It does not discuss permissions or broader operational constraints, though idempotency behavior is covered by the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the key behavioral detail and task-specific usage. Every sentence contributes useful information without filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a write tool that has an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the timeline-event side effect, the returned endpoint, and proposal/task usage. The remaining gap is the low schema coverage for key and note, which prevents full completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description must carry more explanatory weight. It clarifies the practical meaning of the kind values as proposal versus task, but the required key is never described and the note parameter is undocumented. The idempotency_key semantics appear only in the schema, leaving this at a minimum viable level.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: explicitly handing a proposal or task to a human operator, and contrasts this with agents applying proposals themselves. It does not name sibling alternatives such as request_peer_review or agent_escalate_to_human, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: use it when an agent cannot apply a proposal, and for tasks before a human approval/rejection decision. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Veynod toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources