Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Approval Gate MCP

Approval Gate MCP

by itcustomsolution
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

decide_approval

Deny a pending approval request or revoke an approved but unconsumed one so agents awaiting human sign-off receive a clear decision; granting approval still requires the human CLI.

Instructions

Deny a pending request, or revoke an approved-but-unconsumed one. Approvals are not possible through MCP; a human must run approval-gate approve <id> in their own terminal.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe request id returned by request_approval
reasonNoHuman's stated reason, verbatim
approveYestrue to approve (refused unless enabled by the operator), false to deny

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / approve / description
      Previous value: -"true to approve, false to deny"New value: +"true to approve (refused unless enabled by the operator), false to deny"
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"The request id returned by request_approval"
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / maxLength
      Added value: +64
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason / maxLength
      Added value: +8192
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the out-of-band approval constraint and the two state transitions it causes, but says nothing about what happens on failure (e.g. request already consumed), whether denial is reversible, or how `reason` is used — and it does not reconcile the tension with the schema's `approve` parameter, which can still be set to true when the operator enables it.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler, with the primary action stated first and the hard constraint immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 3-parameter state-mutating gate tool with no output schema, the description covers the main paths and the human-approval constraint. It is still thin on error behavior and post-denial state, which an agent needs before committing to a mutation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so id, reason, and approve are already fully documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds only indirect meaning about the approve flag and nothing about the format or purpose of `reason`.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: denying a pending request or revoking an approved-but-unconsumed one. That scope implicitly separates it from request_approval and consume_approval, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Clearly frames the two valid use cases (deny pending, revoke unconsumed) and adds the critical when-not: an agent cannot approve through MCP and must direct a human to run the CLI. It stops short of routing to a specific sibling tool by name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools