Refuse a pending approval request with an authenticated human identity, recording the decision under their name.
WRITES. Refuses one pending approval request. Requires an authenticated human; the answer is recorded under their name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | The pending request to refuse, as returned by list_pending_approvals. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / request_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The pending request to refuse, as returned by list_pending_approvals."v0.12.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description itself must disclose behavior. It does flag 'WRITES' and states that the answer is recorded under the authenticated human's name, which is important context. However, it stops short of explaining the result or implications of the denial, such as finality or effect on the request state.
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?
Extremely concise: three short clauses that cover the write intent, the action, and a key precondition/audit requirement. Every sentence carries informational weight, with no filler.
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?
With a single parameter and no output schema, a super-rich description is not expected, but the description does not explain what the tool returns or what happens if the request is invalid or already processed. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, this is a notable gap.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the request_id parameter, as it already says 'The pending request to refuse, as returned by list_pending_approvals.' The description adds little beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies; the pointer is useful path does not introduce substantial new semantics.
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?
The description clearly specifies a distinct action ('Refuses one pending approval request') with a specific verb and resource, and it naturally distinguishes from siblings like 'approve'. No ambiguity about what operation the tool performs.
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?
The description gives clear contextual guidance: it applies to pending approval requests and notes a mandatory authenticated human. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over 'approve' or 'resolve', but the opposite action is implied by the sibling naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.