human_input

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Ask the user a yes/no question

ask_confirm

Read-only

Get explicit user approval for destructive or irreversible actions by asking a yes/no question that states the exact target and consequence, then return the confirmed answer.

Instructions

Ask the user a single yes/no question and wait for the answer. Use this before destructive or irreversible actions (deleting, overwriting, migrating, force-pushing, publishing), and for any binary decision the user should own. State the exact target and the consequence in question, not just "are you sure?". Returns a boolean in confirmed (and "yes"/"no" in answer).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`default`	No	Optional pre-selected answer. Omit it for genuinely open decisions; pre-selecting a destructive action is discouraged.
`question`	Yes	A question answerable with yes/no. For destructive or irreversible actions, name the exact target and consequence so the user can judge the risk.
`timeout_ms`	No	Optional override, in milliseconds, for how long to wait for the user. Defaults to the server setting (HIM_TIMEOUT_MS, 300000).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`via`	Yes	Channel that produced the outcome.
`tool`	Yes	Name of the tool that produced this result.
`answer`	Yes	The answer as a string: chosen label, "yes"/"no", or the typed text.
`status`	Yes	Outcome. Only `answered` carries a usable answer. `needs_user_input` means you must ask the user yourself, in chat, using the question and options in `message`.
`message`	Yes	Human-readable summary, including options when the question is still unanswered.
`fallback`	Yes	Configured fallback mode (HIM_FALLBACK).
`form_url`	Yes	Loopback form URL, when the http fallback served this question.
`question`	Yes	The question as it was asked.
`selected`	Yes	Selected labels; exactly one for ask_choice, N for ask_multi_select.
`confirmed`	Yes	ask_confirm only: true for yes, false for no.
`free_text`	Yes	Optional free-text note supplied alongside a choice.
`next_step`	Yes	What you should do next. Follow it.
`elapsed_ms`	Yes	Wall-clock time spent waiting for the user, in milliseconds.
`client_elicitation`	Yes	Whether the connected client declared MCP form-elicitation support during initialize.
`auto_reject_suspected`	Yes	True when a decline came back so fast that the client probably auto-rejected rather than asking the user.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds that the tool waits for the user and returns both a boolean `confirmed` and a string `answer`. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. The core purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance follows immediately, and the return behavior is summarized compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: when to call it, how to phrase the question, and what it returns. Nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

Even with 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful guidance: it tells the agent to state the exact target and consequence in `question` rather than a generic 'are you sure?', and it clarifies when to omit or avoid pre-selecting a `default`. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the action: ask the user a single yes/no question and wait. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'single yes/no' and by naming its return format, so an agent can differentiate it from ask_choice, ask_text, and ask_multi_select.

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?

It provides clear trigger conditions: use before destructive or irreversible actions and for binary decisions the user should own. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the guidance is specific enough to route an agent correctly.

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

Deploy Server