Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SuperDev

SuperDev

by Xsxdot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

List operation approvals

list_operation_approvals
Read-only

Retrieve pending or historical operation approval requests with optional filters for status, project, and limit, to audit human-approved changes.

Instructions

List pending or historical operation approval requests.

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": "list_operation_approvals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
statusNo
project_idNo
project_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the 'pending or historical' scoping, which clarifies the kind of data returned, but does not disclose pagination, filtering behavior beyond status, or response format.

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 entire description is a single, clearly worded sentence that immediately conveys the core function. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

With four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent. It omits parameter meanings, expected response structure, and any usage caveats.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (limit, status, project_id, project_name). This leaves parameter semantics entirely to the schema's bare field names, which is insufficient.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists operation approval requests, specifying both pending and historical scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_operation_approval (single) and list_operation_audit (audit trail).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_operation_audit or get_operation_approval. The description lacks any exclusions or conditions for selecting this tool.

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