Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Approval Gate MCP

Approval Gate MCP

by itcustomsolution
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_pending

Retrieve approval requests awaiting a human decision, oldest first and paginated, so agents can review pending items and continue with the next page using the returned cursor.

Instructions

List approval requests awaiting a human decision, oldest first, one page at a time. Returns {items, nextCursor}; nextCursor is present only when more requests exist (pass it back as cursor). Items omit payload text; use check_approval for one full request.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoPage size, 1-100 (default 50)
cursorNonextCursor from the previous page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / cursor
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "nextCursor from the previous page",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 50,
+  "description": "Page size, 1-100 (default 50)",
+  "maximum": 100,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return envelope {items, nextCursor}, that nextCursor is conditional, and that item payloads are truncated. It does not state the operation is read-only or note any permission/auth expectations, which is a modest remaining gap for a no-annotation 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the escalation path to check_approval. No filler and no repetition of schema details.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the response envelope and paging contract. An agent has everything needed to paginate correctly and to know when to escalate to a detail tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that cursor is a nextCursor fed back from a prior page and that nextCursor only appears when more results exist. This clarifies the paging loop in a way the schema's one-line field descriptions do not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List approval requests awaiting a human decision") plus ordering and paging scope, and names the sibling that serves single-record reads. An agent can distinguish it from check_approval and the decide/consume siblings without opening any schema.

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?

"Items omit payload text; use check_approval for one full request" gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it. There is no exclusion for the remaining siblings (wait_for_approval, decide_approval), so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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