Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agentbus

agentbus

by onicarps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

agentbus_approve

Approve a pending event to grant agents visibility on poll, enabling only approved events to be processed.

Instructions

Approve a pending event so agents can see it on poll.

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": {
      "event_id": "<event_id>"
    },
    "name": "agentbus_approve"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
event_idYes
auth_tokenNo
reviewer_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.17.0
  2. Removedv0.16.3
  3. Addedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals that the tool changes state (approval) and makes events visible on poll, but omits critical details like required permissions, idempotency, reversibility, or side effects. Mutation tools need richer behavioral context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient but arguably too brief given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no schema coverage, mutation). A few more sentences would improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is a mutation with no annotations and an output schema (not described). The description does not cover what constitutes a 'pending event', the approval workflow, or the response structure. The context is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no parameter meaning. It does not explain event_id, auth_token, or reviewer_id, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. The description must compensate for missing schema descriptions but fails to do so.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Approve' and the resource 'pending event', and clarifies the effect 'so agents can see it on poll'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like agentbus_review, suggesting a specific approval step.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not provide prerequisites, conditions for use, or exclusions. The sibling tools list is given but not leveraged to explain selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools