Check whether an intent is awaiting approval, approved, or rejected so you can decide the next action.
[Capability: preparation_only; tier: session_bound; API: /api/v1/agent/intents/{intentId}; authority: /api/v1/agent/status] Approve: inspect whether an intent is still awaiting approval, has been approved, or was rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intentId | Yes | ||
| sessionId | No | ||
| agentAddress | No | ||
| sessionToken | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context via 'session_bound' and API paths, but does not explain authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response contains beyond the three possible approval states.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with the key purpose front-loaded after a brief metadata prefix. The bracketed capability/API tags are dense but not wasteful; the only slight cost is the ambiguous 'Approve:' label.
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 session-bound read-only status tool, the description covers the core query but leaves important gaps: it does not explain the session/auth parameters, whether sessionToken is required, or how the three status states are represented. With no output schema, more detail on the return shape would be valuable.
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%, and the description only indirectly references intentId in the API path template. It does not explain sessionId, agentAddress, or sessionToken, leaving three of four parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 names a specific verb (inspect) and the exact resource state being queried (whether an intent is awaiting approval, approved, or rejected). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling status tools such as get_workflow_status or get_mee_intent_status.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_execution_authority or get_mee_intent_status. The 'preparation_only; session_bound' tags hint at a session context but do not state prerequisites or exclusions explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.