Check the human-approval status of a Squidbrake-held Acme call: execute it if approved, report rejection, or continue waiting.
Finish a acme call Squidbrake was holding for human approval (WAITING FOR HUMAN APPROVAL): runs it if approved, reports if rejected, or keeps waiting a little longer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the branching behavior (executes on approval, reports on rejection, keeps waiting otherwise), which is valuable. However, it omits who/what grants approval, whether the call is idempotent, side effects of execution, and rate/timeout behavior for the 'waiting longer' path.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and parenthetical state. Slight awkwardness ('a acme call') but no wasted 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?
For a one-parameter mutation-adjacent tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the outcome branches but leaves the meaning of event_id and the approval mechanism unexplained. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter 'event_id', and the description says nothing about what an event_id is, where to obtain it, or its format. With low coverage the description should compensate but does not.
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 states a specific action on a specific resource: resolving a held 'acme' call that is waiting for human approval, with three possible outcomes (run if approved, report if rejected, keep waiting). This is far more than a restatement of the name. It doesn't explicitly compare against siblings, but the 'finish a held call' framing is clear enough to distinguish it.
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 description implies usage ('WAITING FOR HUMAN APPROVAL') but never gives an explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor names acme_recent_decisions or any alternative. An agent can infer that it is for pending approvals, but the routing logic is left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.