retail-ops-mcp-kit

get_approval_status

Check an approval's current status by ID to see if it is pending, approved, executed, or refused. Verify whether a retail operation change is authorized before proceeding.

Instructions

Return the current record for approval_id (pending | approved | executed | refused).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "approval_id": "<approval_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_approval_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`approval_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Return' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavior when the ID is not found, permissions needed, or whether the full record is returned. Basic transparency but lacks edge-case context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence of about 10 words. Every word is useful, and the status values are listed concisely. No filler or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what is returned (current record) and the possible status values. No further context needed for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for approval_id' but adds little beyond the parameter name itself; the parameter role as an identifier is obvious from the tool name. Does not provide format or examples, but for a simple ID parameter the minimal hint is adequate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource 'approval_id', and explicitly lists the possible status values (pending | approved | executed | refused). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'approve' and 'list_pending_approvals' that perform different actions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage: to fetch the current status/record for a specific approval ID. It does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or exclude scenarios, but the tool name and description make it clear it is for retrieving individual approval status.

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

Deploy Server