Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
joinwell52-AI

fcop-mcp

by joinwell52-AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

approve_task

Complete Core T4 review by submitting independently validated report, review, profile, and authorization evidence to mark a coordinated task done.

Instructions

Request Core T4 review to done using independently validated review and authorization evidence.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actorYes
task_idYes
report_refYes
review_refYes
profile_refYes
authorization_refYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed10 schema fields changedv4.0.5
    • removedInput schema / properties / actor / default
      Removed value: -"ADMIN"
    • removedInput schema / properties / actor / description
      Removed value: -"Role code of the approver (default ``\"ADMIN\"``)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / authorization_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / note
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": "",
-  "description": "Optional approval note appended to the transition event.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / profile_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / report_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / review_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / task_id / description
      Removed value: -"Task ID or full filename."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "task_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "task_id",
+  "actor",
+  "report_ref",
+  "review_ref",
+  "authorization_ref",
+  "profile_ref"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv3.2.4

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The phrase 'review to done' weakly implies a state transition, but the description does not disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, irreversibility, error behavior, or what 'independently validated' means operationally.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single sentence, but it is front-loaded with undefined jargon ('Core T4') and an ambiguous phrase ('review to done'). Brevity is not helpful here because the sentence is too opaque to orient the agent.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a six-required-parameter approval operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is drastically incomplete. It leaves the agent without the workflow, parameter meanings, or behavioral expectations needed to invoke the tool safely.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six required parameters. The description vaguely connects to review_ref and authorization_ref via 'review and authorization evidence,' but it leaves actor, task_id, report_ref, and profile_ref completely unexplained, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description says 'Request Core T4 review to done,' which is jargon-heavy and never plainly states that this tool approves a task or transitions it to a done state. It references review and authorization evidence but does not clearly distinguish this action from siblings like reject_task, submit_task, or mark_human_approved.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use approve_task versus reject_task, submit_task, mark_human_approved, or any other sibling. No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context are provided.

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