blackboard_approve_proposalApprove or reject pending proposals at the human-in-the-loop supervisory boundary, providing human oversight for agent decisions.
Approve or reject a pending proposal at the HITL supervisory boundary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| feedback | No | ||
| proposal_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the tool modifies the state of a pending proposal, but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, permissions, or the result of approval versus rejection, and there are no annotations to supplement this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant or extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no schema property descriptions and no annotations, the minimal description leaves important context missing, such as the meaning of feedback, the exact effect of each action, and what the response will contain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters with no descriptions, and the description only implicitly references proposal_id and action, leaving feedback completely unexplained and adding no substantive meaning to the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Approve or reject'), the object ('a pending proposal'), and the context ('HITL supervisory boundary'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context 'HITL supervisory boundary' implies when this tool should be used, but it does not explicitly compare it to sibling tools such as blackboard_propose_input or colloquium_commit_to_blackboard, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.