Skip to main content
Glama

Approve Task

approve_task
Destructive

Approves the submission shown on an approval card, spending the selected time window and starting the task asynchronously with its original task ID.

Instructions

Internal approval card action. Spends one window for exactly the submission the card displayed and starts it asynchronously; the task id stays the one the card was opened with.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "minutes": "<minutes>"
    },
    "name": "approve_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
minutesYes
task_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond that: it states the spend is irreversible ('spends one window'), that it is bound to exactly the submission displayed, and that execution begins asynchronously. It stops short of covering failure modes for a stale or already-approved card.

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 compact sentence-pair with the consumption caveat front-loaded ahead of the async behavior. Nothing is padded, though the density of undefined jargon ('window', 'card') limits how much the brevity buys.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the irreversible spend and async start but omits the most consequential parameter ('minutes'), any indication of what a successful call returns, and what happens on a stale card. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 carry both parameters and it does not. It clarifies task_id ('stays the one the card was opened with') but never explains the required 'minutes' parameter or its 1-240 range, and 'window' is left as undefined jargon.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The phrase 'Internal approval card action' gestures at the purpose, and 'spends one window ... and starts it asynchronously' implies an approval that begins execution, but the verb 'approve' never appears and the description never distinguishes this from the sibling decline_task. An agent must infer the operation from the name rather than read it in the description.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the obvious alternative, decline_task, or of prerequisites such as an open approval card being required. Usage is only implied by 'card action', which leaves the agent to guess when this is the right call.

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