NitroWatch

request_action

Run a governed MCP server tool: get immediate results for low-risk actions or an approval ID for those requiring human sign-off.

Instructions

Ask NitroWatch to run a tool on a governed server. Read tools and promoted tools run immediately; everything else is queued for human approval and returns an approvalId.

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": {
      "serverId": "<serverId>",
      "toolName": "<toolName>"
    },
    "name": "request_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`args`	No	Arguments to pass to the downstream tool
`serverId`	Yes
`toolName`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavior: immediate execution vs queueing for human approval with an approvalId. It gives the core behavioral distinction but doesn't describe side effects beyond the approval flow.

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 two compact sentences that front-load the core action and immediately clarify the execution policy. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the main API behavior but omits what immediate runs return and doesn't elaborate on argument structure. Given no annotations and no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema only describes the 'args' parameter, leaving serverId and toolName undocumented. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so an agent must infer from names alone, which is insufficient for a 33% coverage.

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 function: 'Ask NitroWatch to run a tool on a governed server.' It also distinguishes behavior for read/promoted tools vs others, differentiating it from sibling tools like approve_action and list_pending_approvals.

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?

The description explains that read tools and promoted tools run immediately, while others require approval, giving clear context for expected behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, relying on context from sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server