macp-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

commit

Finalize a MACP decision session with a binding resolution, closing it to further messages. Use it to record the approved or rejected action, authority scope, and reason.

Instructions

Resolve the session with a binding Commitment (normally the initiator).

After this the session is RESOLVED and accepts no further messages.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "action": "<action>",
      "authority_scope": "<authority_scope>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "commit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	The decided action, e.g. 'deployment.approved'.
`reason`	Yes	Why, e.g. which proposal won the vote.
`session_id`	Yes	The MACP session id (from start_session).
`authority_scope`	Yes	The scope of authority the decision binds, e.g. 'release'.
`outcome_positive`	No	False when the decision is a rejection.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`sender`	Yes
`duplicate`	Yes
`message_id`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes
`session_state`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical terminal behavior: the session becomes RESOLVED and 'accepts no further messages.' It also identifies that the commitment is binding and normally made by the initiator, which is exactly the kind of state-changing consequence an agent needs before calling it.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key consequence. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the full parameter descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context. The only notable gap is explicit sequencing guidance relative to siblings like vote or evaluate, but that is a minor omission for a terminal commitment tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, syntax, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 resource: 'Resolve the session with a binding Commitment.' It clearly conveys the terminal nature of the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as vote or evaluate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides an implied usage context by saying the call is 'normally the initiator' and that the session becomes resolved afterward. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of propose, vote, or evaluate, nor does it describe exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server