Executes approve, reject, or cancel actions on VCF Automation approval requests, including approver comments and admin full or current-level approval options.
Approves or Rejects the approval request POST /approval/api/approvals/action
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | approval request action | |
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information refer to /approval/api/about |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as required permissions, the effect of CANCEL, or the difference between fullApproval and currentLevelApproval.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loads the core action, but the included endpoint path largely duplicates the annotation title and does not help tool selection. There is little waste, but also little structure beyond two short lines.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a nested mutation tool with several action options and no output schema. The description does not explain the supported actions beyond approve/reject, omits CANCEL despite it being in the schema, and does not help distinguish full approval from current-level approval.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters and nested fields. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the high-level approve/reject action, which is the expected baseline when the schema is comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and resource: approving or rejecting an approval request. It is clearer than the generic tool name, but it does not distinguish this action tool from sibling tools such as approvals_reject_work_item and approvals_answer_work_item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the other approval-related sibling tools. It only restates the action and endpoint, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.