Approve or reject a pending destructive action or break-glass secret reveal via an out-of-band confirmation token, ensuring sensitive vault operations require explicit consent.
Confirm or cancel a pending destructive action or break-glass reveal using an out-of-band confirmation token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| approved | Yes | ||
| confirmationToken | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two-phase pattern and that the token is out-of-band. However, it omits the consequences of approving vs cancelling, token lifetime/single-use semantics, and any permission requirements for a tool that gates destructive operations.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its mechanism are stated immediately without redundancy.
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 2-parameter gating tool with no annotations or output schema, the core is conveyed. Missing are the downstream effects of each branch, token behavior, and any failure modes the agent should anticipate when a token is invalid or expired.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it clarifies that the token is an 'out-of-band confirmation token' and that the confirm/cancel choice maps to the boolean. It adds no format, source, or validation detail for the token beyond the schema's minLength.
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?
States a specific verb pair (confirm/cancel) and a specific resource (a pending destructive action or break-glass reveal), which is far more than a tautology. It does not name or differentiate against any sibling tool, so an agent must infer the relationship to vault_prompt_secret_oob or vault_delete_secret.
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?
Usage is implied by 'pending' and 'out-of-band confirmation token' – the agent can infer this follows a prior action that returned a token. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no statement that a token must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.