agentcard

list_pending_approvals

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the user's PENDING approval requests: asks from connected apps (create a card, view full card details, close/pause/resume a card, change a limit) waiting on the user's decision. Surface each one to the user and let THEM decide; after the user answers, resolve with approve_request. NEVER approve or deny on your own — an approval is the user's consent, not yours. Personal sessions only; company-connected sessions have no personal inbox.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	Number of pending approvals.
`status`	No	Present only when the list is unavailable: "personal_surface_only" for company-connected sessions.
`message`	Yes	Human-readable list of pending approvals (or an empty-state note).
`approvals`	No	Pending, unexpired approval requests, newest first. Each is waiting on the user's decision.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 13, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / approvals / items / properties / card / properties / connectedCard / description

Previous value: -"For cards minted against the user's attached card: the real card behind it (issuer, brand, last4, nickname)."New value: +"For cards created against the user's added card: the real card behind it (issuer, brand, last4, nickname)."

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes beyond annotations by emphasizing that approvals require user consent and the agent must not act on its own. Also discloses session scope. The readOnlyHint/idempotentHint align with 'list pending approvals', with no contradiction.

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 sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds either scope, usage rule, or session constraint; the most critical consent rule is front-loaded.

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 zero params and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and important guardrails. No gaps remain for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4; description correctly omits parameter details.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists the user's PENDING approval requests from connected apps with specific examples (create a card, view full card details, close/pause/resume a card, change a limit). It distinguishes from sibling approve_request by framing this as the listing step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance: surface each request and let the user decide, resolve with approve_request afterward. Also states session limitation ('Personal sessions only; company-connected sessions have no personal inbox') and the rule 'NEVER approve or deny on your own'.

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

All agentcard tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially in areas like card management and shopping. However, the KYC flow has multiple overlapping tools (start_kyc, get_kyc_status, check_kyc_document, submit_kyc_document, submit_kyc_fields) that could confuse an agent despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_funds, create_card, list_cards). A few exceptions like surprise_me and whoami break the pattern but are still intuitive overall.

Tool Count3/5

50 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the broad domain (cards, shopping, KYC, support, settings) partially justifies it. Some tools could be merged (e.g., KYC flow tools) without losing clarity.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows: CRUD for cards, transactions, KYC, support, shopping, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_card general, no cancel order in shopping), but overall the set is comprehensive for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?