Bullhorn MCP Agent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

commit_mapping_changes

Approve or reject a stored mapping-change proposal by supplying its proposal ID, diff hash, and decision to commit or discard pending Bullhorn mapping updates.

Instructions

Approve or reject a stored proposal. The actor comes from BULLHORN_MCP_ACTOR.

Args: proposal_id: The proposal_id returned by propose_mapping_changes. diff_hash: The diff_hash returned by propose_mapping_changes. decision: "approve" or "reject".

Returns: JSON with status (committed, rejected or refused), version (on commit) and correlation_id.

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": {
      "proposal_id": "<proposal_id>",
      "diff_hash": "<diff_hash>",
      "decision": "<decision>"
    },
    "name": "commit_mapping_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`decision`	Yes
`diff_hash`	Yes
`proposal_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully better than average: it discloses the auth source (BULLHORN_MCP_ACTOR), the permitted decision values, and the three possible outcome statuses including 'refused', which hints at a safety/consistency guard around diff_hash. It does not explain what triggers 'refused', whether the proposal is consumed or reusable after commit, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

Cleanly structured into a summary line, an Args block, and a Returns block, with the purpose front-loaded. The repeated 'returned by propose_mapping_changes' phrasing is slightly redundant, but nothing is padded.

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 three-param mutation tool with no annotations, it covers arguments, precondition, caller identity, and outcomes. An output schema exists so the Returns recap is optional rather than required; the remaining gap is the absence of failure/refusal conditions and post-commit state of the proposal.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning and does: it documents all three required params, gives provenance for proposal_id and diff_hash, and supplies the effectively-enumerated 'approve'/'reject' domain for decision, which the schema omits entirely. This is close to full compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb pair (approve/reject) applied to a specific resource (a stored proposal), and explicitly ties that proposal to the sibling tool propose_mapping_changes. An agent can distinguish this from propose_mapping_changes and other mapping tools without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The provenance of proposal_id and diff_hash ('returned by propose_mapping_changes') makes the ordering precondition clear: this tool is called after a proposal exists. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to call it (e.g. proposal already committed, hash stale), so it falls short of full 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.