Skip to main content
Glama
Atlasent

atlasent-mcp

Official
by Atlasent
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

AtlaSent — Create Approval Request

atlasent_create_approval_request

Create an approval request when an evaluate response returns 'hold'. The request ID enables later resolution; approval informs authorization but does not grant execution.

Instructions

Create an approval request for a held action. The request ID is returned in the evaluate response when decision is 'hold'. Submit resolution via atlasent_resolve_approval_request. Approval is an input to Authorization; it does not itself authorize or prove execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesThe action requiring approval (e.g. 'production.deploy').
org_idYesOrganization ID that owns the policy.
contextNoContext from the original evaluate call.
subjectYesThe actor requesting the approval (e.g. 'user:alice').
resourceYesThe resource the action targets (e.g. 'env:production').
justificationNoHuman-readable justification for why the action is needed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.12.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / description
      Previous value: -"The action requiring approval (e.g. 'delete:production-db')."New value: +"The action requiring approval (e.g. 'production.deploy')."
    • changedInput schema / properties / resource / description
      Previous value: -"The resource the action targets (e.g. 'db:prod-postgres')."New value: +"The resource the action targets (e.g. 'env:production')."
  2. First observedv2.11.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read, non-destructive write operation, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds meaningful context: it explains the request ID source, the resolution path, and the semantic boundary that approval does not itself authorize or prove execution. It does not detail side effects like whether duplicate requests are possible, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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. The core action is front-loaded, the source of the request ID is given, the resolution sibling is named, and the semantic boundary is stated. Every sentence earns its place.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition, the required input relationship, and the follow-up action. It does not describe the response shape or whether the request ID is returned synchronously, but the description's explicit link to the evaluate response and resolver tool gives an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds the crucial relationship between the request ID and the evaluate response, but it does not add per-parameter meaning 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create an approval request for a held action') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling resolver tool by naming atlasent_resolve_approval_request. It also clarifies the relationship to Authorization, which prevents confusion with the evaluate/permit siblings.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: when a decision is 'hold' and a request ID is returned in the evaluate response. It also names the alternative for submitting resolution and clarifies that approval is an input to Authorization, not an authorization itself. This is strong routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools