pressadvantage-mcp

sandbox_approve_with_exception

Simulate an editor approving an order with a guideline exception to test workflow behavior in a sandbox environment.

Instructions

[SANDBOX/TESTING ONLY] Simulate an editor approving an order that has a guideline exception

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "sandbox_approve_with_exception"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Release ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states 'Simulate an editor approving' but does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is reversible, what state changes occur, or the return value. The term 'simulate' hints at a test operation but leaves the behavior opaque.

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?

The description is a single sentence that gets straight to the point, with a useful sandbox-only warning prefix. There is no unnecessary fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a mutation-like tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what happens on success, what the output would be, or any important side effects. For a sandbox simulation, some might argue low risk, but the description still leaves critical gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The input schema has full coverage with the parameter 'id' described as 'Release ID', so the schema already documents it. The description adds no new parameter information and even introduces a minor terminology mismatch by calling it an 'order' instead of a 'release'. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the specific action: simulating an editor approving an order that has a guideline exception. This differentiates it from sibling tools like sandbox_editor_approves (which likely approves without an exception) and sandbox_editor_rejects, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 '[SANDBOX/TESTING ONLY]' prefix explicitly indicates this tool is for testing environments only, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sandbox_editor_approves or provide exclusion criteria, leaving the usage context implied rather than fully spelled out.

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