Skip to main content
Glama

Approve one exact act

issue_approval

Approve a specific act by recording a principal's signed approval bound to its action hash, satisfying mandate verification's require_approval step.

Instructions

Record a named principal's approval of one exact act, bound to the action_hash verify_mandate reported. Call this only after verify_mandate answered require_approval, then call verify_mandate again passing approval_id and the identical proposed_action.

The approval is signed by the approving principal's own key, not by the agent's, because the control is that somebody other than the acting agent said yes. It binds one action hash and one transaction and is reusable across neither: change one byte of the act and the next verify_mandate returns A202-APPROVAL-HASH-MISMATCH. It also expires, after which it authorises nothing.

An approval never releases a deny. A denied constraint is a limit, not a question.

Returns the approval identifier, the action hash it binds, and when it expires.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
approverYesThe principal giving the approval, and the key that principal signs with.
decisionNoDefaults to approved. A rejected approval releases nothing and is recorded as the refusal it is.
conditionsNoOptional conditions the approver attached. They are part of the signed approval and travel with it.
expires_atNoRFC 3339 instant the approval expires, when you would rather state it than count from now. Overrides expires_after_seconds.
action_hashYesThe action_hash verify_mandate returned for this act. 64 lowercase hexadecimal characters.
requested_byYesThe agent whose act is being approved. The approver is a principal of this same organisation.
transaction_idYesThe transaction the approved act belongs to, prefixed txn_.
expires_after_secondsNoHow long the approval is good for, from now. Defaults to 3600.
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the signing key ownership, single hash/tx binding, expiration, and the A202-APPROVAL-HASH-MISMATCH behavior. This adds substantial behavioral context that annotations do not provide.

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 several sentences long but each sentence earns its place: purpose, sequencing, signing details, hash binding, expiration, deny behavior, and return value. It is front-loaded and logically structured.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description states the return fields (approval identifier, action hash, expiration) and provides the full invocation sequence and behavioral constraints. The schema fully documents parameters, so the description covers all necessary context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema by linking action_hash to the verify_mandate result, explaining that conditions become part of the signed approval, and clarifying that a rejected decision releases nothing. This enrichment earns a 4.

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 states a specific action: recording a named principal's approval of one exact act, bound to the action_hash verify_mandate reported. It clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes this from sibling tools by referencing the verify_mandate flow.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs to call only after verify_mandate answered require_approval, then to call verify_mandate again with approval_id. It also states a key boundary: an approval never releases a deny, providing clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/a202-protocol/a202'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server