Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agentbus

agentbus

by onicarps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

agentbus_reject

Reject a pending event and notify its originating agent with an optional reason.

Instructions

Reject a pending event and notify the originating agent.

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_reject"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNorejected by human reviewer
event_idYes
auth_tokenNo
reviewer_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.18.0
  2. Removedv0.16.3
  3. Addedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention the notification side effect, but it omits critical information such as whether the rejection is permanent, how the event state changes, or any authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the primary action and key side effect. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given four parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, this description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the lifecycle of the event, the meaning of reviewer_id, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to rely on the output schema which does not cover these behavioral aspects.

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%, and the description provides no parameter details. While event_id and reason may be self-evident from their names, auth_token and reviewer_id are not explained, forcing the agent to guess their purpose and required format.

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 clearly states the verb 'Reject', the resource 'a pending event', and the side effect 'notify the originating agent.' It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like approve and review, which have contrary or different purposes.

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?

The usage context is implied: use this tool when rejecting a pending event. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, nor does it contrast with approve or review, so the guidance is only implicit.

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