group_approvePublishes a track to a group for approval and alerts members, enabling owners and editors to review pending audio.
Owner and editors: publishes a sound that waits for approval; the members are told about it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | ||
| track_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that only owners/editors may perform the action and that members are notified as a side effect. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits reversibility and error behavior.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with the role restriction first and the effect second. The phrasing is slightly awkward, but there is no wasted verbiage.
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?
For a two-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers permissions and one side effect but leaves parameter semantics and success/failure behavior underspecified. It is adequate but incomplete for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both required integer parameters. It only vaguely implies a group and a sound/track, without clarifying group_id versus track_id or any format expectations.
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?
The description states a specific action: publishing an approval-pending sound in a group, and mentions the resulting member notification. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic group actions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives among the many group-related siblings.
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?
The phrase 'Owner and editors' gives an important permission prerequisite, implying when the tool is usable. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like group_track or group_member_role, and no exclusions or failure conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.