List approval requests visible or assigned to you, with filters for status, type, and role to track pending decisions.
List visible or assigned approval requests. Requires approvals:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | pending | |
| created_by | No | ||
| approval_type | No | ||
| required_role | No | ||
| assigned_to_me | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only safety profile. The description adds useful context about the required permission and the 'visible or assigned' scope, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or how visibility is determined. It neither contradicts the annotation nor fully characterizes behavior.
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?
One sentence front-loads the core action and resource, then states the permission requirement. There is no wasted wording or repetition of the schema, title, or annotations.
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?
Despite having an output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description does not explain accepted values for status, approval_type, or required_role, nor what 'visible' means. With six optional parameters and 0% schema coverage, the definition is too sparse for an agent to use it with confidence.
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%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining six parameters. It only gestures toward 'assigned' requests, leaving limit, status, created_by, approval_type, and required_role undocumented. Parameter names alone are not sufficient.
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 opens with the verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'approval requests,' narrowed by scope ('visible or assigned'). It is clear and separates this from single-item tools like gateway_approval_get, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
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?
It provides one prerequisite ('Requires approvals:read') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus related sibling tools such as gateway_approval_get, gateway_approval_decide, or gateway_access_request_list. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints, which is a significant gap given the large sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.