Skip to main content
Glama

Approve task approval

approveTaskApproval
Destructive

Let an assistant task run do what it asked for. For a send or a reply, subject and body replace what the run wrote. Only approve what the user has seen and agreed to.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "approveTaskApproval"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe approval request id, which starts with apr_, as listTaskApprovals gives it.
bodyNoFor a send or a reply: the words to send instead of the ones the run wrote.
subjectNoFor a send or a reply: the subject to use instead of the one the run wrote.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the destructive/openWorld annotations, the description discloses that subject and body replace what the task run wrote for send/reply actions. It also adds a safety precondition about user consent, though it does not elaborate on irreversibility or post-approval effects.

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 short sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by parameter behavior and the key safety constraint. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 approval action with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the needed purpose, override behavior, and consent caution. It leaves some routing detail to sibling tools and schema documentation.

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 the id, subject, and body parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces that subject/body override run-written content for send/reply actions, but adds little beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly explains the effect: approving a task approval lets the assistant task run proceed. It also names the send/reply override case, but it does not explicitly distinguish this approval tool from denyTaskApproval or getTaskApproval.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives an important usage constraint: only approve what the user has seen and agreed to. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of denyTaskApproval, or that listTaskApprovals is where the approval id comes from.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.