Record owner approval of a draft version and issue an approval token bound to its content hash; later edits invalidate the token.
Record owner approval of the current version. Returns an approval token bound to the content hash; any later edit invalidates it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft_id | Yes | ||
| approved_by | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries real weight and delivers: it discloses the return value (an approval token bound to the content hash) and a non-obvious side effect (any later edit invalidates the token). It leaves out idempotency and failure behavior, but the invalidation rule is exactly the kind of trait annotations would otherwise cover.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the token/invalidation caveat follows. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does explain the return value and its invalidation semantics, which is the main thing an agent needs. What remains thin is the parameter-level guidance and repeat-call behavior, both of which matter given two undocumented inputs.
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 0% and neither parameter is documented. The phrase 'owner approval' loosely hints that approved_by identifies the approver, but the description never mentions draft_id, never says whether approved_by is optional, and never clarifies whose identity or which version is targeted.
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?
States a specific verb and object: recording owner approval of the current draft version, which is clearly distinct from draft_create, draft_preview and syndicate_drafts. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: you call it to approve the current version, and the invalidation note hints at sequencing (approve after edits). There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of required owner privileges, and no statement about what happens if approval is repeated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.