SceneScout

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Ask the person to confirm a guided plan

scout_guided_confirm

Requests a person's confirmation through a server-shown form before starting a write-capable guided plan and reports whether they accepted or declined.

Instructions

Ask the PERSON, through a form this server shows them, whether a guided plan whose care level writes may start: May submit forms on a site that is not on this computer, or May create test data anywhere (which also asks them to type a code the form shows). You may make this call; you cannot answer it, and nothing you pass accepts a plan. The plan is accepted only when the person says yes in the form. When they decline, close it, go back, mistype the code, or this client cannot show forms, the plan stays unaccepted and the result says so: tell the person, and offer the same check in Look only. Never retry it on their behalf. Touches no browser.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`planId`	Yes	The plan to confirm, as scout_guided_plan or scout_intake returned it

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`planId`	Yes
`outcome`	Yes
`accepted`	Yes
`tellPerson`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.31.0Oct 26, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
Addedv3.25.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses that acceptance can only come from the person in the form, that the call has no browser side effects, that failure is reported in the result, and that retrying is forbidden. These are critical behavioral facts the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=false) do not convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is front-loaded with the core action, but the sentences are long, nested, and syntactically tangled (e.g. 'a guided plan whose care level writes may start'), making it harder to scan than necessary. The content earns its place, but the structure costs readability.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers failure modes and the no-browser trait. For a single-parameter human-gated confirmation tool this is nearly complete, with only the form mechanics left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single planId parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds the useful clarification that no parameter value can itself accept the plan, but gives no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's own note. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (ask the person, via a server-shown form, to confirm a guided plan) and names the exact conditions the plan must meet. It is clearly a human-in-the-loop confirmation gate, distinct from scout_run_plan or scout_guided_plan. The phrasing is dense enough that the purpose takes some parsing, keeping it from a 5.

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?

It explicitly says the agent may make the call but cannot answer it, that nothing passed accepts the plan, and that it must never be retried on the person's behalf. It enumerates the decline paths (close, go back, mistype, client cannot show forms) and prescribes the fallback of offering the check in Look only, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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