Authorize a pending deletion request by supplying its ID to confirm and execute the removal. Requires API token for administrative approval.
Approve a pending deletion request. API token required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the deletion request |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It mentions the API token requirement but not that approving is likely a destructive/irreversible action, nor what happens to the underlying resource once approved; the agent has to infer the consequences.
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 the action first and the prerequisite second; no filler or redundancy. Every word 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 one-parameter action, the description covers what the tool does and the auth requirement, and there is no output schema to account for. But it leaves unstated the effect on the resource after approval and whether the action is reversible, which is significant for a potentially destructive operation.
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%, and the schema already describes 'id' as the ID of the deletion request. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Approve') and a precise resource ('pending deletion request'), making the action unmistakable. The sibling set includes get_deletion_requests and reject_deletion_request, so the approve verb clearly differentiates this tool from its alternatives.
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 description implies the tool should be used when a deletion request is pending and the agent intends to approve it, and it adds the API token prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with reject_deletion_request or mention any conditions under which approval should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.