Skip to main content
Glama
calebn

Podcast MCP

by calebn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

approve_edits_tool

Approve pending podcast edits by ID or all at once, applying them to the timeline after automatic audio-quality checks. Override checks to force approval.

Instructions

Approve pending edits by id (or every pending proposal), applying them to the timeline.

To give every pending sound its own suggested action at once, use apply_suggested_actions_tool.

all_pending=true approves every pending proposal; ids approves those. Either way the edits that pass the automatic audio-quality and cut-position checks apply, and held lists the ones stopped (each with its finding) and left pending. When the user says to approve a held cut anyway, repeat with override_audio_checks=true: it skips those checks for this call and records the override (actor and surface) in History and the edit log.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNo
all_pendingNo
project_pathNo
override_audio_checksNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / all_pending
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "All Pending",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ids
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Ids"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / ids_json
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Ids Json",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / override_audio_checks
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Override Audio Checks",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_path / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_path / default
      Added value: +null
    • removedInput schema / properties / project_path / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "project_path",
-  "ids_json"
-]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that passing edits must clear automatic audio-quality and cut-position checks, that blocked edits are returned in 'held' with their finding and stay pending, and that override_audio_checks skips those checks for the call and records the override (actor and surface) in History and the edit log. It omits permission/auth requirements and reversibility, but the gating and audit behavior is unusually well disclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The core action and its scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the sibling alternative and then the override/held behavior. Sentences are dense but each adds routing or behavioral information; only the double-back reference to the held/override flow feels slightly repetitive.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema covering 'held', the description supplies the key semantics: batching, the quality-gate outcome, and the override/audit path. The unexplained project_path and absence of any reversibility note are the remaining gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains three of four parameters with real semantics: ids (which proposals), all_pending (approve every pending proposal), and override_audio_checks (skip quality checks for this call and log the override). project_path is left unexplained, keeping this short of a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (approve), resource (pending edits), scope (by id or all pending), and the consequence (applied to the timeline). It also names the sibling it is not (apply_suggested_actions_tool), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative for a related-but-different intent ('To give every pending sound its own suggested action at once, use apply_suggested_actions_tool') and clarifies the ids vs all_pending selection. It does not state when not to call it (e.g. versus reject_edits_tool or update_pending_edit_tool), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools