GET /approvals
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional query overrides for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas. | |
| cursor | No | ||
| brand_id | No | ||
| workspace_id | No | Workspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / cursorAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 512,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / workspace_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Workspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention return format, pagination, filtering behavior, or any side effects. The annotations already declare read-only and idempotent; the description provides zero additional behavioral disclosure.
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?
While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. 'GET /approvals' is a raw endpoint path, not a meaningful tool description. It omits essential information and fails to earn its place as a useful description.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters including a nested query object, no output schema, and ambiguous semantics among siblings. The description does not explain what an approval is, what the response includes, how to filter, or when to use this vs list_pending_approvals. It is completely inadequate for correct invocation.
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?
The description contains no information about any parameters. Schema coverage is only 50% (cursor and brand_id lack descriptions), and this description does nothing to compensate. The 'query' parameter is mentioned in the schema but not in the description, so an agent has no guidance on how to construct a query.
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 'GET /approvals' is essentially an HTTP path that restates the tool name without explaining the action or returned resource. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like aidelly_list_pending_approvals or aidelly_get_approvals_id, making the purpose ambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aidelly_list_pending_approvals or aidelly_get_approvals_id. There is no mention of intended use cases, prerequisites, or context.
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.