raposa-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_approval

Create an approval request and receive its ID right away. Use a webhook URL or poll with get_approval to track the decision, with risk levels low, medium, or high.

Instructions

Create an approval request and return its id immediately (no waiting). Use with a webhook_url, or poll with get_approval. risk: low | medium | high.

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "context": "<context>",
      "risk": "<risk>"
    },
    "name": "create_approval"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`risk`	Yes
`action`	Yes
`context`	Yes
`webhook_url`	No
`requested_by`	No	mcp-agent
`expires_in_sec`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal the non-blocking, asynchronous behavior ('no waiting') and the webhook/poll follow-up pattern, which is valuable. But it omits what happens after creation, whether approval may be automatic, or any side effects or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core behavior is front-loaded and the usage follow-up is compact.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description lacks meaning for four of six parameters and fails to contrast with request_human_approval. It captures the creation flow but is incomplete for correct invocation in all cases.

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 explain parameters. It explains risk's allowed values (low|medium|high) and hints at webhook_url's role, but leaves action, context, requested_by, and expires_in_sec without any semantic guidance.

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 names a specific operation ('Create an approval request') and the key outcome ('return its id immediately'), so the core purpose is unmistakable. It explicitly references get_approval for polling, distinguishing it from that sibling, but it does not differentiate from request_human_approval.

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?

It gives two concrete usage modes: supply a webhook_url, or poll with get_approval. However, it never says when create_approval should be chosen over request_human_approval, and provides no when-not conditions.

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

Deploy Server