Skip to main content
Glama

company_review_decisions

Record and manage operator decisions on intelligence review actions—accept, defer, or decline with owners and due dates—then persist and merge the decision ledger under each review for audit and follow-up.

Instructions

Record what the operator decided about the actions a persisted intelligence review raised: each decision (accept with an owner and due date, defer with a due date, decline) bound to a raised action, undecided actions named rather than assumed accepted, money at stake by decision, and the accepted or deferred actions past due; operation build seals the ledger, record persists it under the review and amends it in place (new decisions merge over the recorded ones), list returns every persisted ledger; the next review carries the decisions and the review outcomes tell them apart (payload: decisions, and optionally review_ref or review).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nowNo
engineNo
operationNobuild
entity_refNo
project_idYes
bundle_jsonYes
payload_jsonNo{}

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'record amends in place' (mutation), 'new decisions merge over the recorded ones', and details what gets captured (owner, due date, money, past-due status). This is substantial behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense run-on sentence with many nested clauses. It is not front-loaded and is difficult to parse. Key information is buried, making it less concise and structured than it should be.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (content unknown), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how to construct requests, what goes in bundle_json or payload_json, or how operations are specified. Many details about return values and edge cases are missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'payload: decisions, and optionally review_ref or review' but doesn't map this to the actual schema parameters (e.g., payload_json, operation, bundle_json). The operation parameter is not explicitly linked to the described operations. Very weak compensation for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool records decisions (accept, defer, decline) from a persisted intelligence review, with an explicit resource and action. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like company_review_outcomes or company_intelligence_review, but the purpose is discernible.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the three operations (build, record, list) and their effects, but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or 'use when' conditions are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools