Approve podcast social clips by ID to mark them ready for publishing. Provide one or more clip IDs and an optional project path to update approval status.
Approve social clips by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / idsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": "Ids",
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / ids_jsonRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Ids Json",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "ids_json"
-]New value: +[
+ "ids"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what approval actually changes, whether it is reversible, whether it requires permissions, or what happens to clips not listed. For a state-mutating tool this is a substantial gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency — it is terse where it should be informative.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the definition still leaves the mutation semantics, prerequisite workflow, and both parameters undocumented, which is not enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 two parameters. 'By id' only loosely points at the ids array and says nothing about whether it accepts multiple clips, what a clip id looks like, or what project_path is for.
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 verb ('approve') and resource ('social clips') plus the lookup key ('by id'), which is clear. However it makes no attempt to differentiate itself from the closely-named siblings reject_social_clips_tool, propose_social_clips_tool, or list_social_clips_tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to approve versus reject, whether a prior propose_social_clips_tool step is required, or what state the clips must be in. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.