Moxie CRM MCP Server

approve_deliverable

Approve a project deliverable by deliverable ID, marking it as complete.

Instructions

Approve a deliverable/task in a project

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": {
      "deliverableId": "<deliverableId>"
    },
    "name": "approve_deliverable"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`clientName`	No	Client name for the project
`projectName`	No	Project name containing the deliverable
`deliverableId`	Yes	ID of the deliverable to approve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.2Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely restates the function name ('Approve a deliverable/task') without describing side effects, reversibility, response format, or required permissions. This is essentially a tautology and provides no additional behavioral insight.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and front-loaded, but it lacks structure and completeness. It is a single phrase that is concise but under-specifies the tool's behavior, making it less useful than a more detailed but still concise description.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain return values, errors, workflow implications, or any post-approval effects. It is not complete enough for an agent to understand the full context of using this tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only mentions 'in a project' which aligns with clientName/projectName but does not clarify their role or relationship to deliverableId.

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 clearly states the specific action 'Approve' and the resource 'deliverable/task' within a project context. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_task or update_project because no other tool is about approving deliverables.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or situations where approval is needed. The description simply states the action without any contextual usage guidance.

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