Reject a pending application.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| application_id | Yes | Application UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| status | No | New status: rejected |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "New status: rejected",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency. The description adds the 'pending' constraint, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not detail side effects, permissions, or irreversibility.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is easily scannable and direct.
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?
For a simple mutation with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that the application must be in pending status, but the description already implies it.
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 coverage is 100% and describes the single parameter adequately. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameter beyond the schema.
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 action (reject) and resource (application), and implies it is for pending applications. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'accept_application', though the name makes it obvious.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'accept_application' or other workflow steps. No conditions or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.