Verified Handles

Decline an application

reject_application

Destructive

Decline an open application with a reason and an optional note; the applicant is emailed both, and the note goes on its thread. Cannot be undone (they may apply again). Audited. Dry run by default; the real run needs confirm set to the application’s id.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	A note to the applicant: what would change the answer, if anything.
`reason`	Yes	Why it is declined — the applicant is emailed it: "ineligible" (Does not meet the eligibility policy), "duplicate" (An entry for this subject already exists), "insufficient_evidence" (Not enough evidence to assess the application), "out_of_scope" (Outside what Verified Handles lists), "other" (Other — see the note).
`confirm`	No	Needed with dry_run: false: this change’s exact target, as the dry run gives it in `confirm`.
`dry_run`	No	true (the default): write nothing — show the change and the exact request it would send. false: make the change.
`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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing side effects and constraints the agent cannot infer from structured fields: the applicant is emailed both reason and note, the note lands on the application thread, the action is audited, and it is irreversible though the applicant may reapply. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false and adds real operational context.

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, front-loaded with the action and its side effects, then the irreversibility warning, then the dry-run safety workflow. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive, confirmation-gated mutation the description covers side effects, reversibility, audit, and the dry-run/confirm protocol, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The only shortfall is the lack of explicit contrast with the other application-disposition siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that confirm must equal the application's id (the schema only says 'this change's exact target'), and ties reason/note to the emailed-to-applicant behavior. The dry_run default is restated rather than clarified, so it is not a full 5.

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 and resource ('Decline an open application') with the required inputs and its scope ('open application'), clearly separating it from approve_application and mark_application_spam in the sibling list. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 'open application' qualifier implies the precondition, and the dry-run-default workflow tells the agent how to actually execute. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this from adjacent siblings like mark_application_spam or comment_on_application, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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.