List provider permission requests waiting for human decision, preventing auto-approval. Review and resolve pending permissions across connected agents.
List provider permission requests awaiting an explicit human decision. Never auto-approved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: these requests are never auto-approved and are deliberately waiting for an explicit human decision, which explains the semantic state of the listed items. No contradiction with annotations.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and object, and the second adds a critical operational qualifier 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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It clearly names what is listed, the state of the items, and the key behavioral constraint. No output schema exists, but the return is implied as a list of requests.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so parameter semantics are vacuously satisfied and no description-level compensation is needed. The description's focus on the resource type is sufficient for invocation.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List provider permission requests awaiting an explicit human decision.' The qualifier 'Never auto-approved' sharpens the state of the listed items and helps distinguish this read-only listing tool from sibling tools like permission_respond, which handles the actual response action.
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 implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs to see permission requests that still require human action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative tool (permission_respond), so the routing guidance is left to inference rather than being stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.