Housewarden

Reject action

reject_action

DestructiveIdempotent

Cancel a waiting action so it never executes by supplying its action ID. Add an optional reason to record why it was declined.

Instructions

Declines a waiting action so it never runs. Needs the action id; a reason is optional.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	No	Why, in the user's words (optional).
`action_id`	Yes	The action_id from a needs_confirmation reply.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	Yes
`reason`	Yes
`spoken`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`preview`	Yes
`action_id`	Yes
`rejected_at`	Yes
`idempotent_replay`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds the meaningful consequence 'never runs' on top of destructiveHint=true, conveying finality. It also clarifies the target ('waiting action'). No contradiction with annotations; idempotency is left to the annotation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and target, and every phrase carries information. No filler or repetition beyond a brief restatement of required/optional params.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description plus schema gives an agent everything needed to select and call it: target, required id, optional reason, and effect. The only omission is an explicit pointer to confirm_action, which is a usage-guideline nicety rather than a completeness gap.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters (100%), including action_id's format/source and reason's optionality. The description only restates that action_id is needed and reason is optional, adding no new semantic detail.

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 verb and resource ('Declines a waiting action') and states the consequence ('so it never runs'), making the purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly name or contrast with confirm_action, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly situates the tool as the action to take for waiting actions that should not run. It does not state exclusions or point to alternatives like confirm_action, so guidance stops short of explicit when/when-not.

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