compose-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

approve_all_files

Permanently accepts all pending changes across modified files, clears backups and journal entries, and finalizes reviewed edits. Use when no rollback is needed.

Instructions

Destructive: Approves ALL pending changes permanently. Removes them from journal.

What it does: Permanently accepts all pending changes in the journal across all modified files.
When to use: When all modifications from recent operations are verified and accepted.
When NOT to use: No rollback after this action. Use approve_file_changes for single files. Use reject_all_files to discard instead.
Side effects: Destructive: Permanently clears all backups and journal entries. Changes cannot be rolled back.
Parameters: None.
Returns:
  JSON string confirming all files approved.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: permanent approval, backup/journal clearing, no rollback, and side-effect scope across all modified files. This is exactly the destructive-operation disclosure an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded destructive warning, then labeled sections that are easy to scan. Slight redundancy between the opening line and 'Side effects', but every statement adds a distinct fact (scope, irreversibility, alternatives).

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?

For a zero-param destructive tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, side effects, and return confirmation. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with an explicit 'Parameters: None', leaving no ambiguity.

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 (approves) and resource (all pending files/changes), and the scope 'ALL' plus 'permanently' distinguishes it from the sibling approve_file_changes. An agent can tell exactly what this does from the first line.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, with named alternatives (approve_file_changes for single files, reject_all_files to discard). Routing is unambiguous.

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