pressadvantage-mcp

sandbox_editor_rejects

Simulate an editor rejecting a press release to test the revision workflow in a sandbox environment.

Instructions

[SANDBOX/TESTING ONLY] Simulate an editor rejecting the release content back to the customer for revision

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_rejects"
  }
}

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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 behavioral disclosure. It tells us the action is a simulation and describes the workflow outcome, but it does not mention whether the sandbox release status changes or whether the action can be reversed. This is a moderate gap for a mutation-like simulation tool.

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 with a front-loaded environment label. Every word adds relevant context, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: environment, action, and target. It could optionally detail sandbox side effects, but the current level is sufficient for its simplicity.

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 only parameter, id, is fully documented in the schema as 'Release ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so 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 opens with '[SANDBOX/TESTING ONLY]' and clearly states the action: 'Simulate an editor rejecting the release content back to the customer for revision'. This uses a specific verb plus resource and outcome, and it distinguishes this tool from sandbox_editor_approves and the production reject_release_to_writers.

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 explicitly scopes usage to testing environments and implies it should not be used in production. It does not name alternative tools, but the sibling list provides context and the sandbox simulation intent is clear.

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