3D New Era AI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Accept findings

accept

Destructive

Mark floor-plan layout, ergonomics, electrical, or plumbing findings as reviewed by key and reason; they stop counting. Empty reason reverts; prune drops orphaned entries.

Instructions

Mark findings of layout, ergonomics, electrical or plumbing as looked at, by the key the review gives: accept=[[key, reason]] — they stay in their review with the reason and stop counting (score, pendencies, dry runs); an empty reason takes one back. prune=true drops every acceptance whose finding is gone (the reviews list them as orphaned). One undoable step. Reply ok, with accepted and removed counts; read the review again to see it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prune`	No	Drop every acceptance whose finding is gone — the `orphaned` the reviews list — from all of them at once
`accept`	No	`[[key, reason]]`, key as the review names it (`layout`, ergonomics, electrical, plumbing): it keeps showing there with the reason and stops counting. An empty reason takes it back

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`v`	No
`ok`	Yes
`ids`	No
`rev`	No
`text`	Yes
`removed`	No
`accepted`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedv3.0.0Sep 30, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / accept / default
```
Removed value: -[]
```

changedInput schema / properties / accept / description

Previous value: -"`[[key, reason]]`, key as the review names it (`check_layout`, ergonomics, electrical, plumbing): it keeps showing there with the reason and stops counting. An empty reason takes it back"New value: +"`[[key, reason]]`, key as the review names it (`layout`, ergonomics, electrical, plumbing): it keeps showing there with the reason and stops counting. An empty reason takes it back"

removedInput schema / properties / prune / default
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedOutput schema / properties / accepted / description
```
Removed value: -"Findings accepted"
```
removedOutput schema / properties / ids / description
```
Removed value: -"Ids created or touched"
```
removedOutput schema / properties / ok / description
```
Removed value: -"Always true"
```
removedOutput schema / properties / removed / description
```
Removed value: -"Acceptances removed"
```
removedOutput schema / properties / rev / description
```
Removed value: -"Plan revision"
```
removedOutput schema / properties / text / description
```
Removed value: -"The reply as written"
```

removedOutput schema / properties / v / description

Removed value: -"Plan version written to, when there are several"

First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description goes well beyond: it discloses that accepted findings stop counting toward score/pendencies/dry runs while remaining visible, that an empty reason reverses the action, that prune drops orphaned acceptances, and that the step is undoable. This is rich behavioral context beyond structured data.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The main action is front-loaded, but the sentence is dense with nested parentheses, semicolons, and parenthetical asides that make it harder to parse than necessary. The information earns its place, but the structure is cluttered.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-optional-param mutation with an output schema, the description covers triggers, reversibility, orphan handling, and confirms the ok/accepted/removed reply. It stops short of directing the agent to re-read the review as part of a workflow, but is otherwise complete.

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 both parameters are already documented with near-identical text to the description. The description reinforces the [[key, reason]] shape and the orphaned semantics of prune but adds little that the schema doesn't already convey, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and effect: marking findings (layout, ergonomics, electrical, plumbing) as looked at via the key the review provides. It is clearly distinguishable from adjacent edit_* tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it competes with.

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?

It explains the core usage path (accept=[[key, reason]] to mark looked-at, empty reason to reverse) and the conditional prune=true path for orphaned acceptances. What's missing is any explicit statement of when NOT to use it versus sibling tools like feedback or edit_history.

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