fix-mcp

approve_action

Submit structured approval for trading actions, enforcing idempotency and risk-flagged audit trail.

Instructions

Submit a structured approval payload for an action. Enforces idempotency and risk-flagged audit trail.

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "order_ids": "<order_ids>",
      "approved_by": "<approved_by>"
    },
    "name": "approve_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes
`order_ids`	Yes
`approved_by`	Yes
`risk_flag`	No
`tool_name`	No
`reason`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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. It mentions idempotency and risk-flagged audit trail, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is a read or write operation, what the return value is, or any side effects beyond the implied submission.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose. It is concise and includes key terms like idempotency and audit trail. However, it could be slightly more structured with additional details without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks return value information, parameter constraints, and error behavior. An AI agent would need more context to use this tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides a high-level context ('approval payload') but does not explain individual parameters (action, order_ids, risk_flag, etc.) or their allowed values. This is insufficient for an agent to understand how to populate parameters correctly.

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's purpose: 'Submit a structured approval payload for an action.' The verb 'submit' and resource 'approval payload for an action' are specific. No sibling tool has a similar purpose, so it is well-distinguished.

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 description implies usage for approvals with idempotency and audit trail enforcement, but does not explicitly state when to use it or provide alternatives. Given the sibling list lacks other approval tools, the lack of exclusion is acceptable but not explicit.

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