semantic-saga-mcp

approve_saga_step

Approve or reject a saga workflow step: approvals follow tenant governance, while rejection remains fail-safe to allow compensation.

Instructions

Approve or reject a workflow node; approvals are subject to tenant governance while rejection remains fail-safe.

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": {
      "saga_id": "<saga_id>",
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "approve_saga_step"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	No
`node_id`	Yes
`saga_id`	Yes
`approved`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses two meaningful behaviors: approvals are subject to tenant governance, and rejection is fail-safe. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not explain side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens after approval or rejection.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds information: the action, the target, the governance constraint, and the fail-safe rejection behavior.

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?

This is a mutation-oriented tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry significant weight. It explains the basic purpose and one policy nuance, but it omits parameter semantics, when to invoke it, and expected outcomes, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 explain the roles of saga_id, node_id, reason, or approved. The approve/reject wording loosely maps to the 'approved' boolean, but the description adds almost no meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.

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 action ('Approve or reject') on a clear resource ('a workflow node'), which identifies the tool's core function. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like execute_saga_step, but the approval/rejection framing is sufficiently distinct.

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?

The description implies this tool is used to handle approval decisions on workflow nodes, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over related tools such as run_ready_steps or execute_saga_step. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server