Approve a pending clearance by ID so an AI agent can proceed after human authorization; optionally attach a decision note and receive status plus a signed token.
Approve a pending clearance. Calls POST /v1/clearances/{id}/decide with approved=true. Returns id, status, decided_at, and the signed token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Clearance ID to approve | |
| note | No | Optional decision note stored with the approval (max 500 characters) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the HTTP call and approved=true plus return fields, but it omits permissions, error cases, idempotency, and other side effects of approving a clearance.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by implementation detail. There is no wasted text.
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 simple two-parameter approve action, the description covers purpose, endpoint behavior, and return fields despite there being no output schema. It is nearly complete, though authorization and failure behavior are still unstated.
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 100%, so the schema already documents id and note. The description only reiterates id through the endpoint path and does not add meaning beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate baseline.
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 and resource: 'Approve a pending clearance.' The action is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as clearances_deny and clearances_revoke.
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 description makes clear this is for approving a pending clearance, which gives adequate context. It does not explicitly name alternatives like clearances_deny, but the approve-vs-deny distinction is obvious from the verb and scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.