Approve or reject a bridge resolution. On approval: creates signed evidence, upgrades Ampel to GREEN, logs to audit chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reject | No | Set true to reject instead of approve | |
| approved_by | No | Name + role of approver (e.g. Dr. Mueller, CISO) | |
| resolution_id | No | Resolution ID from bridge_resolve | |
| rejection_reason | No | Reason for rejection (if rejecting) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the side effects of approval: signed evidence, Ampel upgrade, audit log. However, it does not disclose what happens on rejection (e.g., audit logging, state change), leaving a gap for half the tool's functionality.
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?
A single sentence with a clear opening verb and outcomes. No filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 description explains the approval side well but omits rejection behavior and return value. With no output schema and no annotations, the tool is only partially specified. The lack of required parameters hints at conditional logic that is not addressed.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds extra context about the approval process but does not clarify parameter relationships (e.g., when rejection_reason is required). This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Approve or reject a bridge resolution.' It also names concrete outcomes (creates signed evidence, upgrades Ampel to GREEN, logs to audit chain), which distinguishes it from bridge_resolve and bridge_status.
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 context is clear: this tool is for acting on a bridge resolution. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the verb 'approve/reject' makes its role distinct. No exclusions are given, so it does not fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not' bar.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose, particularly contract analysis (check_contract, contract_analyze, llm_clause_check) which could confuse agents. Assessment-related tools (readiness_check, assess_all, article_status) also have partially overlapping functionality. However, most tools have distinct resources and actions with detailed descriptions.
Tool names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_entity, generate_report, register_provider). Minor deviations like contract_analyze and llm_clause_check invert the verb-noun order, but the overall pattern is predictable.
50 tools is a very large surface for a single server, exceeding the threshold for 'too many' tools. While the DORA domain is broad, this breadth makes it challenging for agents to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool set covers the full DORA compliance lifecycle: entity onboarding, contract analysis, provider management, assessments, evidence, reporting, and incident workflows. Simulation and cross-regulation tools add depth. Minor missing CRUD operations (e.g., update/delete entity) but agents can work around.