pressadvantage-mcp

sandbox_editor_approves

Simulate editor approval for a press release in a sandbox environment. Use the release ID to test approval workflows.

Instructions

[SANDBOX/TESTING ONLY] Simulate an editor approving the release content

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_editor_approves"
  }
}

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Simulate an editor approving', without explaining side effects, state changes, idempotency, authorization needs, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably mutates release state even in a sandbox.

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 concise sentence with a clear prefix tag. Every word earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded with the sandbox indicator.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not disclose what happens when the simulation runs—whether it changes the release status, returns a value, or can be reverted. The sandbox/testing context is clear, but behavioral details are missing, making it minimally adequate.

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 100% coverage with a single required parameter 'id' described as 'Release ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool simulates an editor approving release content, with 'Simulate' as the verb and 'editor approving the release content' as the resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like sandbox_editor_rejects and approve_release, and the [SANDBOX/TESTING ONLY] tag further clarifies its specific role.

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 [SANDBOX/TESTING ONLY] prefix provides clear context that this tool is for sandbox/testing use, not production. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as pointing to approve_release for real approvals, leaving the when-not-to-use guidance implicit.

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