Verified Handles

Ask an applicant for more

ask_applicant

Ask the applicant a question: it goes on the application’s thread, they are emailed it, and the application waits on them (needs_info) until they reply. Only for an application waiting on a reviewer. Audited. Dry run by default.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dry_run`	No	true (the default): write nothing — show the change and the exact request it would send. false: make the change.
`message`	Yes	Your question — the applicant sees it.
`application_id`	Yes	The application’s id (list_applications).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	A dry run: what to do next to make the change, in words.
`result`	No	A real run: the route’s own answer, where the tool adds facts of its own beside it.
`confirm`	No	A dry run of a change that needs it: the exact target to send back as `confirm` with dry_run: false.
`dry_run`	No	true: a dry run, which wrote nothing. Absent from a real run.
`replayed`	No	A real run with an idempotency_key already used for this change: the first call’s answer, given back; nothing was written now.
`would_send`	No	A dry run: the exact request the real run would send (`method`, `path`, any `headers` such as an Idempotency-Key, and its `body`, `form` or `query`), or the requests, in order.
`may_edit_live`	No	A dry run of a live edit: whether this key’s account may edit this entry live.
`refused_because`	No	A dry run the real run would be refused for: why, in words.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, but the description adds the real behavioral payload: the question is posted to the thread, the applicant is emailed, the application enters a waiting (needs_info) state until reply, and the action is audited. That is exactly the beyond-annotations context an agent needs.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the core action and its consequences are front-loaded, with the precondition, audit note, and dry-run default following compactly.

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?

With an output schema present, a 100%-covered input schema, and full annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs — purpose, side effects, precondition, audit, and default dry-run behavior — leaving no critical gap.

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 parameters are already documented, and dry_run's default and message's limit are fully covered. The description clarifies the effect of the message (thread + email) but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline.

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 verb (ask), resource (applicant), and the concrete effects — thread post, email, and transition to needs_info. These side effects clearly distinguish it from a plain comment_on_application, letting an agent pick the right tool without opening 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?

'Only for an application waiting on a reviewer' is an explicit precondition that tells the agent when the tool applies. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., comment_on_application for non-blocking messages), so it lands just below the top band.

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

All Verified Handles tools Inspect

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.