Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ThriftyRelay

ThriftyRelay

by Roseu7
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Pending Approvals

pending_approvals
Read-only

Retrieve the current list of submissions awaiting approval, or pass a task ID to check that submission's status and terminal state.

Instructions

Internal approval card data source. With task_id it returns that submission or its terminal state; without it, the current pending list.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pending_approvals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful mode-dependent return behavior, but it does not describe pagination, ordering, permissions, or the structure of returned approval card data.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's role and immediately followed by the two key usage modes. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly in both modes. It stops short of explaining the returned approval card fields or how this data source relates to sibling approval tools.

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

Parameters4/5

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 parameter meaning. It does so well by explaining that task_id retrieves that submission or its terminal state, while omitting it returns the current pending list; the schema itself supplies the string pattern.

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 states a specific resource, approval card data, and distinguishes two return modes: a specific submission/terminal state when task_id is supplied, and the current pending list otherwise. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as open_approval or approval_step to sharpen differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The conditional use of task_id versus omission is clearly described, implying when to use each mode. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus sibling tools like open_approval or approve_task, nor does it include exclusions or alternative routing.

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