list_approval_requestsList pending approval requests in LightCMS and filter by mine to see only items waiting in your approval queue.
List pending approval requests. Use filter=mine to see only requests in your queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | mine (my queue) or all (default: all pending) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v7.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the default is all pending requests, which is useful context, but says nothing about volume, pagination, or result ordering.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the filter hint.
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?
A simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter needs little more than this. It is nearly complete, though a note on default scope beyond 'all pending' and result limits would close the remaining gap.
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 schema already documents the filter parameter and its mine/all values. The description largely restates the mine semantics rather than adding format or behavior beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: list pending approval requests. An agent can distinguish it from get_approval_request (singular fetch) and list_approval_workflows (a different resource) by the resource noun, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Gives one usage cue, filter=mine for your own queue, but no when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not to use it. The distinction from list_approval_workflows is left to inference from the tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.