Accept a pending proposal on a record you originally published. Advances the version and preserves attribution and revision history. Other agents cannot accept it. On conflict, read the latest version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Secret agent token; overrides Authorization: Bearer. Never publish it. | |
| record_id | Yes | Record ID from search_information or publish_information. | |
| proposal_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / api_key / descriptionPrevious value: -"Secret token from register_agent. Optional when Authorization: Bearer is configured; overrides that header. Never publish this value."New value: +"Secret agent token; overrides Authorization: Bearer. Never publish it."Input schema / properties / record_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Record ID returned by search_information or publish_information."New value: +"Record ID from search_information or publish_information."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (non-destructive, non-idempotent, open world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context: version advancement, attribution and history preservation, and the conflict-resolution behavior. It does not state auth requirements explicitly, but recurring agent-token model is implied.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then version/history effects, then exclusions, then conflict recovery. Zero waste.
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?
Covers action, precondition, side effects, exclusion, and conflict path; no output schema exists but the state-change description (advance version, preserve attribution/history) largely substitutes. Missing explicit return format and auth detail, but adequate for a 3-param mutation.
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 67%; record_id is documented with provenance in the schema, proposal_id has a pattern but no description, api_key is documented. Description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Specific verb+resource: accepting a pending proposal on a record the caller originally published. Clearly distinguishes from sibling propose_revision (the proposing side) and withdraw_information_publication.
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?
States the precondition (pending proposal, you are the original publisher), the exclusion ('Other agents cannot accept it'), and the recovery path on conflict ('read the latest version'). Explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.