reject_requestReject an approval request in LightCMS with a required comment explaining the reason; the comment posts to the content's discussion thread.
Reject an approval request. A comment explaining the rejection is required and will be posted to the content's discussion thread.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | required,Approval request ID | |
| comment | Yes | required,Rejection reason (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v7.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden; it usefully discloses the side effect that the comment 'will be posted to the content's discussion thread', which tells the agent the rejection reason is publicly visible. It stops short of stating permissions required, whether the decision is final, or whether the request can be resubmitted via submit_for_approval.
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 sentences, no filler, with the action front-loaded and the side effect immediately following. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the action and its most important side effect and both required parameters are documented. It is nearly complete, missing only downstream consequences (finality, resubmission path, permission requirements).
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of the comment (it explains the rejection) and where it is surfaced (the discussion thread), which shapes how the agent should author that value.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Reject an approval request'), which is unambiguous and inherently distinguishes it from the sibling approve_request. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the verb alone makes the intent unmistakable.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as approve_request or cancel_approval_request. The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.