Approve byte-exact observed output as functional quotes and record the approver, letting standard-mode checks rely on expected help, usage, or version text.
Standard mode only: approve byte-exact output the behavior requires (default: help/usage/version output) as functional quotes. Records who approved it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feature | Yes | ||
| action_ids | No | ||
| approved_by | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It says approval is recorded and restricted to standard mode, but it does not describe side effects, permissions, reversibility, conflicts, or what happens when action_ids is omitted.
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?
The description is two tight sentences with the mode restriction and main action front-loaded. Every sentence contributes directly to explaining the approval behavior.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations, three parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse about parameter meaning, approval side effects, and alternative tools.
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 0%, and all three parameters lack schema descriptions. The description loosely implies 'who approved it' maps to approved_by, but it does not explain feature or action_ids, leaving most parameter meaning undocumented.
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 uses a specific verb, 'approve', and identifies the resource as byte-exact observed output required by behavior. It also scopes the tool to standard mode and mentions default help/usage/version output, but it does not explicitly distinguish this approval action from related siblings such as add_quote or propose_claim.
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?
The phrase 'Standard mode only' gives a usage condition, and the parenthetical default identifies common applicable output types. However, the description does not name alternatives or explain when not to use this tool compared with related quote/claim/spec tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.