secobserve-mcp

Approve SecObserve Assessments

secobserve_approve_observation_log

Approve or reject pending observation log assessments in a four-eyes workflow. Requires a non-submitter approver; rejection includes a remark for the submitter.

Instructions

Approve or reject assessments waiting in 'Needs approval' (the four-eyes workflow).

Only an approver other than the submitter can clear a pending assessment, and until it is cleared the observation accepts no further assessment. Rejection requires a remark, which is what the submitter sees.

Args: params (ApproveInput): Validated input containing: - observation_log_ids (List[int]): 1-250 pending observation log ids. - assessment_status (ApprovalStatus): "Approved", "Approved with edits" or "Rejected". - rejection_remark (Optional[str]): Required when rejecting. - observation_log_comment (Optional[str]): Replacement comment, only with "Approved with edits". - observation_log_vex_justification (Optional[VexJustification]): Replacement justification, only with "Approved with edits" and one id.

Returns: str: A confirmation naming the verdict and how many logs it was applied to. Single-id calls use the per-log endpoint, several ids the bulk endpoint.

Examples: - Use when: "approve the pending assessment on log 991" -> observation_log_ids=[991], assessment_status="Approved" - Use when: "reject 991, the justification does not match the evidence" -> assessment_status="Rejected", rejection_remark="..." - Use when: clearing a review queue -> list observation_logs filtered by assessment_status="Needs approval", then pass the ids here. - Don't use when: making the assessment itself (use secobserve_assess_observation).

Error Handling: 403 means the token may not approve, or is the submitter's own -- SecObserve refuses self-approval. 400 means the log is not in 'Needs approval' any more.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

It discloses important behavioral constraints beyond the annotations: only a non-submitter approver can act, pending assessments block further assessment, rejection requires a remark visible to the submitter, and error semantics for 403 and 400 are explained. This is rich, non-obvious context that helps the agent anticipate outcomes.

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 long but well-structured into Args, Returns, Examples, and Error Handling. The first sentence is the most important one, and every section earns its place by providing actionable information rather than filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex approval workflow with conditional parameters, permissions, and state restrictions, the description is complete: it covers when to use it, how to call it, what each parameter means, what the response is, and how to interpret failures. The output schema and examples further round it out.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Even though the top-level schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully by explaining every field and the conditional relationships between them: rejection requires a remark, edits only apply with 'Approved with edits', and the VEX justification override is limited to a single id. It also states the 1-250 id range.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Approve or reject assessments waiting in Needs approval' in the four-eyes workflow. It also explicitly contrasts itself with secobserve_assess_observation, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides concrete 'Use when' examples, explains how to clear a review queue by listing logs with assessment_status='Needs approval', and explicitly says not to use it for making assessments. This gives an agent clear routing guidance versus its siblings.

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

Deploy Server