@createworker/mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Approve / reject a task

approval_decide

Decide the outcome of a proposed task by approving, rejecting, or providing an edited action. Manage task approvals directly within your workflow.

Instructions

Decide a PROPOSED task's action: APPROVE (execute), REJECT, or EDIT (provide editedAction).

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>",
      "decision": "<decision>"
    },
    "name": "approval_decide"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`taskId`	Yes	the task id
`decision`	Yes
`editedAction`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool changes task state (approve/reject/edit) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The disclosure is partial, hence a 3.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters). No waste, but room for improvement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and 3 parameters including a nested object, the description is somewhat incomplete. It lacks details on post-decision behavior (e.g., what happens on approval/rejection) and prerequisites, making it only adequately complete for a medium-complexity tool.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'decision' parameter's enum values and linking 'editedAction' to the EDIT choice. The 'taskId' is implied. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though not exhaustive.

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 clearly states the verb 'Decide' and the resource 'PROPOSED task's action', listing the three possible actions (APPROVE, REJECT, EDIT). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like task_cancel or task_create by focusing on decision-making for proposed tasks.

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 description implies usage context by specifying it is for a 'PROPOSED task' and lists the three decision options. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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