getfund

Approve answers

getfund_approve_answers

Idempotent

Approves the answers the founder reviewed, by version: items lists question keys with the version reviewed, or all: true takes the current version of every question. One result per item: approved, stale_version (a newer version exists), gap (nothing written yet), issues (the answer has issues to fix), redraft_pending (getfund is drafting the question again) or not_found (the application has no such question). Returns the results, the application status (ready once every question has a written answer without issues) and progress (questions, approved, drafted, gaps). Needs applications:write and the Autopilot plan.

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": {
      "applicationId": "<applicationId>"
    },
    "name": "getfund_approve_answers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`all`	No
`items`	No
`applicationId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only tell us it is a non-destructive, idempotent write. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the six possible per-item outcomes (approved, stale_version, gap, issues, redraft_pending, not_found), what application status 'ready' means, the progress fields returned, and the required applications:write scope plus plan entitlement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and its two modes, then the outcome vocabulary, then return values and prerequisites. It is dense and mostly waste-free, though the status enumeration is a long inline parenthetical that is harder to scan than a list.

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 no output schema, the description is responsible for return semantics — and it delivers: per-item results, the aggregate application status and its 'ready' condition, and the progress counters. Combined with the permission and plan requirements, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it explains that items pairs question keys with the reviewed version and that all: true fans out over every current question. applicationId is only implied by name, and constraints like the 200-item cap or what 'version' means to a stale answer are left to 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Approves the answers the founder reviewed, by version.' The resource 'answers' is distinguishable from the sibling getfund_approve_submission, but the description never explicitly contrasts the two, leaving that routing inference to the agent.

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 clearly documents the two invocation modes (items with per-question versions, or all: true) and the Autopilot plan prerequisite, which is real usage context. It does not say when to prefer this over getfund_save_answers, getfund_save_drafts, or getfund_approve_submission, so mode selection is covered but tool selection is not.

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

All getfund 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.

Resources

Need Help?