ragic-mcp

ragic_approve

Approve or reject pending records. Provide an optional comment to explain your decision.

Instructions

Approve or reject a record awaiting approval.

action must be "approve" or "reject". comment is optional response text.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "sheet_index": "<sheet_index>",
      "record_id": "<record_id>"
    },
    "name": "ragic_approve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	Yes
`action`	No	approve
`comment`	No
`record_id`	Yes
`sheet_index`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool modifies approval status but omits side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or potential notifications. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic action.

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 very short and to the point, with no extraneous words. It could be more structured, but it effectively conveys core information in two sentences.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: three required parameters are unexplained, and there is no mention of the tool's role in the approval workflow or any prerequisites. The agent lacks essential context to use it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description adds meaning for two parameters: specifying valid values for 'action' and clarifying 'comment' as optional response text. However, three required parameters (path, record_id, sheet_index) remain undescribed. Given 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 tool's action: 'Approve or reject a record awaiting approval.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ragic_update_record or ragic_lock, which serve different purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides parameter constraints (action must be 'approve' or 'reject', comment is optional) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ragic_update_record. No context about prerequisites or expected record states is given.

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

Deploy Server