PingRoom

Request Approval

request_approval

Ask the human to approve or reject an action, then block on their answer (pair with wait_for_approval). Delivered as a push to the user. Rate-limited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ttl`	No	Seconds the request stays open before it expires.
`data`	No	Arbitrary structured context, returned on reads after connector privacy filtering. Do not put secrets in data.
`title`	No	Optional short title for the request.
`options`	No	Answers to choose between. Defaults to ["approve","deny"].
`question`	Yes	What you want the human to decide on.
`invite_code`	Yes	Room invite code.
`correlation_id`	No	Your own id, echoed back unchanged on read.
`idempotency_key`	No	Stable key so a retried call cannot create a second one.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Purpose-built PingRoom result with credential and account fields removed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses push delivery, blocking expectation, and rate limiting. It doesn't detail side effects or what happens after rejection, but the annotations already mark it as non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the added behavior notes are useful.

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?

Two short sentences convey purpose, pairing, delivery mode, and rate limiting with no filler. The critical pairing hint is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the remaining operational essentials: it creates a push approval request, should be followed by wait_for_approval, and is rate-limited. No critical calling detail is missing.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented there. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific action ('ask the human to approve or reject an action') and identifies the delivery mechanism (push). It also names the sibling wait_for_approval, so an agent can distinguish the request-creating tool from the waiting/reading tools without inspecting schemas.

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?

The description explicitly pairs this tool with wait_for_approval, giving clear workflow context for when to call it. It does not enumerate exclusions like 'use ask_question for non-approval decisions,' but the approve/reject phrasing supplies enough situational guidance.

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

All PingRoom tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap in purpose: broadcast, trigger_quick_action, create_handoff, ask_question, request_approval, and live_status can all deliver a ping or prompt to a human, and the wait_for_* family has five similar long-polling variants. The detailed descriptions help, but the update_quick_action/update_quick_actions pair and the activate_agent_inbox/handoff flow still create real selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows verb_noun conventions like create_, get_, list_, update_, delete_, and wait_for_, making the naming predictable and searchable. A few outliers — broadcast, connection_info, and live_status — break the pattern, and the live_status/get_live_status pair is less obvious than it could be.

Tool Count2/5

40 tools is a heavy surface for one MCP server, even with a broad feature set spanning rooms, webhooks, quick actions, questions, approvals, handoffs, attachments, and live status. The count feels inflated by many narrow wait/get variants that could be consolidated or exposed through fewer, more composable operations.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows around questions, approvals, handoffs, webhooks, quick actions, and attachments are mostly covered with create/read/list/wait operations. However, the room lifecycle is missing obvious delete or leave operations, and approvals lack list/cancel capabilities, leaving notable gaps for an agent managing those resources.

Resources

Need Help?