tower-mcp

resolve_approval

Approve or reject a parked task by task ID, updating the shared board so agents can proceed or stop based on the decision.

Instructions

Approve or reject a parked task (used by the board; also callable by tools).

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>",
      "approved": "<approved>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_approval"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`taskId`	Yes
`approved`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is a mutation tool, yet it does not say what happens to the task on approval vs rejection, whether the change is reversible, what permissions are required, or what error occurs on an already-resolved task. The actor note is the only extra context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though the parenthetical is arguably the least informative clause placed last.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for an unannotated mutation tool with zero parameter descriptions the definition is too thin: an agent learns neither the preconditions nor the side effects of resolving an approval.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the schema documents neither parameter. The description's 'approve or reject' does map clearly onto the `approved` boolean, but `taskId` is left entirely unexplained. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: approving or rejecting a 'parked task'. This is distinguishable from the sibling request_approval as the resolution side of the flow, though the description never names that sibling or defines what 'parked' means.

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 parenthetical 'used by the board; also callable by tools' describes who calls it, not when to call it or what preconditions must hold (e.g., whether a pending approval request must already exist). No alternative or exclusion is given relative to request_approval.

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