Evaluate whether a plugin has required approval before use. This fail-closed policy check blocks unapproved plugin actions without executing the plugin.
Fail-closed policy preflight; this tool never dispatches the plugin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plugin_id | Yes | ||
| approval_present | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: fail-closed behavior and a firm 'never dispatches the plugin.' These traits are important for an agent deciding whether invoking this tool has side effects.
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 entire description is one tightly written sentence with no filler. The most important behavioral fact, fail-closed preflight, comes first, and the side-effect exclusion is stated immediately after. 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 simple two-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description covers core safety behavior. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns or how the fail-closed result is represented, which is a meaningful gap for an agent that needs to interpret the evaluation outcome.
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 the description does not explain either parameter. While the names plugin_id and approval_present are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify how approval_present interacts with fail-closed behavior or what values are expected, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 clearly defines the tool as a 'policy preflight' that is 'fail-closed' and clarifies it 'never dispatches the plugin,' which states a specific operation and a key non-behavior. It does not explicitly name a sibling or differentiate itself from the listed alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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 term 'preflight' implies the tool should be used before dispatching or relying on a plugin, and 'fail-closed' signals a safety-check context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage mostly inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.