origingrid_reject_contributionReject a pending source-card contribution (admin only; requires admin_token when ORIGINGRID_ADMIN_TOKEN is set). Optionally pass reason. Review loop: list pending → origingrid_approve_contribution(id) / origingrid_reject_contribution(id)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Optional rejection reason (stored for the contributor) | |
| admin_token | No | ||
| contribution_id | Yes |
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, so description bears full burden. It mentions admin restriction and optional reason but does not disclose side effects (e.g., notification to contributor, irreversibility) or what happens upon rejection. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core action and constraints. The second sentence with workflow is slightly list-like but still concise. No wasted words.
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?
No output schema, and description does not mention return value. For a write action, omitting response details is a gap. Also lacks some behavioral context (e.g., permanence). Adequate given sibling tool count but not fully complete.
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 has 3 params with 33% coverage (only reason has description). Description adds minimal context: reason is optional, admin_token needed when env var set. Does not explain admin_token further or contribution_id. Some value added but insufficient given low 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 specifies the verb 'reject', the target 'pending source-card contribution', and admin restriction. It distinguishes from sibling 'origingrid_approve_contribution' by mentioning the review loop.
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?
States admin-only requirement, conditional admin_token need, and outlines the workflow (list pending then approve/reject). Does not explicitly exclude scenarios but provides sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.