Skip to main content
Glama
fbwndrud

vibelore

by fbwndrud
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

lore_decide

Apply your decision to a chapter awaiting approval: commit it, request revisions, hold, or reject and restart. Call only after reviewing the draft and advisory.

Instructions

lore_write가 guided 모드에서 status=awaiting_approval로 돌려준 원고에 대한 사용자 결정을 적용한다. 사용자에게 원고와 advisory를 보여 주고 답을 받은 뒤에만 호출한다. approve는 검사 영수증을 다시 확인하고 그 화를 커밋한다(chapters/·summaries/·상태·스냅숏, status=completed). request_revision은 feedback대로 같은 워크플로에서 고치게 하며 다음 lore_write가 수정·재검사한다. hold는 기록만 남기고 승인 대기를 유지한다. reject는 워크플로를 끝내며 다음 lore_write가 같은 화를 새로 쓴다. 원고 파일은 지우지 않는다. approvalId는 원고가 승인 대기에 다시 들어갈 때마다 새로 발급되므로 이전 id는 거부된다.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesapprove=커밋, request_revision=feedback대로 수정, hold=보류, reject=폐기 후 새로 쓰기.
workIdYes작품 식별자 ([A-Za-z0-9_-]). 한 디렉터리에는 작품 하나만 둔다.
projectNo작품 디렉터리의 절대 경로. 생략하면 서버 실행 디렉터리.
feedbackNorequest_revision에 필수인 구체적 수정 요청. reject에는 선택이며 기록만 된다.
approvalIdYes직전 lore_write(awaiting_approval) 응답의 approvalId.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.4.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / action / description
      Added value: +"approve=커밋, request_revision=feedback대로 수정, hold=보류, reject=폐기 후 새로 쓰기."
    • addedInput schema / properties / approvalId / description
      Added value: +"직전 lore_write(awaiting_approval) 응답의 approvalId."
    • addedInput schema / properties / feedback / description
      Added value: +"request_revision에 필수인 구체적 수정 요청. reject에는 선택이며 기록만 된다."
    • changedInput schema / properties / workId / description
      Previous value: -"작품 식별자 ([A-Za-z0-9_-])."New value: +"작품 식별자 ([A-Za-z0-9_-]). 한 디렉터리에는 작품 하나만 둔다."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out side effects per action: approve re-checks the inspection receipt and commits chapters/, summaries/, state and snapshot with status=completed; hold only records; reject ends the workflow without deleting the manuscript file. It also discloses the non-obvious approvalId lifecycle (a new id is issued each time the manuscript re-enters awaiting approval, so stale ids are rejected).

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?

Front-loads the trigger condition and the precondition before enumerating actions, and every sentence carries information. It is dense and somewhat long, but nothing is wasted padding.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with two booleans' worth of useful annotations and no output schema, this covers the decision semantics, the state transitions and the file-safety question an agent needs. Only the shape of the return payload is left unstated, which is minor given no output schema exists.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: feedback is required for request_revision and merely recorded for reject, and approvalId is scoped to the immediately preceding awaiting_approval response with enforced freshness.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: it applies a user decision to the manuscript that lore_write returned in guided mode with status=awaiting_approval. This scopes it away from the other *_decide siblings (profile/story/arc/webtoon), though it never names an alternative tool explicitly, so it falls just short of the top band.

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 a clear precondition that doubles as a when-not: call only after showing the user the manuscript and advisory and receiving their answer. It also routes each action semantically (approve=commit, request_revision=fix per feedback, hold=retain, reject=discard and rewrite), but does not contrast with neighbouring decide tools.

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