retail-ops-mcp-kit

list_pending_approvals

Retrieve pending write approvals from the staged-write queue for human review. See which mutations await approval before they are applied.

Instructions

List this server's staged, not-yet-approved writes (status=pending). Read-only. Lets a human see what awaits approval; the agent can see them but cannot approve.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_pending_approvals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It clearly discloses the read-only nature, the filtering by status=pending, and the limitation that the agent cannot approve. This is transparent and directly addresses the behavioral trait that matters most.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding distinct value: what it lists, that it's read-only, and the human/agent approval distinction. 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 zero-parameter, simple list operation with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, read-only behavior, and the agent's limitation. It is fully sufficient to guide correct usage.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by clarifying what the tool returns—staged, not-yet-approved writes—which compensates for the absence of parameter-specific details.

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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('this server's staged, not-yet-approved writes (status=pending)'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_approval_status and approve by specifying the pending status and the read-only nature.

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?

The description clearly indicates the tool is for viewing pending items and explicitly states what the agent cannot do ('cannot approve'). This provides practical context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or enumerate exclusion conditions.

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

Deploy Server