Plori

Official

by plori-ai

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Remote

Answer pending question

answer_pending_input

Destructive

Answer pending human-input requests for a paused run: approve or deny with a boolean, supply requested text, then poll the returned continuation run to track progress.

Instructions

Answer a run that is paused on a human-input request (from list_pending_inputs). For an approval, set approved=true/false. For an input request, set value to the requested text. A successful answer starts a continuation run: the returned run_id is that new continuation run, not the parked run, and is the id to poll with get_run_result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	An optional note recorded with the answer.
`scope`	No	Set to "thread" to approve AND allow the rest of this conversation's writes to the same connection, method and host, instead of a standing grant. It expires after 24 hours and covers no other host, method or conversation. Only set it when the human said to stop being asked for the rest of this task; ignored without approved=true, and on a card that has no such scope. Cannot be combined with always_allow.
`value`	No	For an input request: the value to supply.
`run_id`	Yes	The parked run's id.
`approved`	No	For an approval request: approve (true) or deny (false).
`always_allow`	No	Approve AND stop asking for this tool on this agent (a standing grant). Only set it when the human explicitly said to stop being asked, and only on a row whose consent_tool is set; ignored without approved=true. Revoke via DELETE /v1/agents/{agent_id}/tool-consents/{tool}.
`tool_call_id`	Yes	The tool_call_id of the pending request (from list_pending_inputs).
`max_turn_seconds`	No	Optional soft wall-clock budget to preserve on the continuation run; it does not change the parked run or impose a hard deadline.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`run_id`	No	The continuation run created by the answer.
`status`	Yes	Answer status.
`already`	No	Whether this request had already been answered.
`session_id`	No	The continuation run's session.
`tool_call_id`	Yes	The pending tool call that was answered.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.16.0Sep 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / scope

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set to \"thread\" to approve AND allow the rest of this conversation's writes to the same connection, method and host, instead of a standing grant. It expires after 24 hours and covers no other host, method or conversation. Only set it when the human said to stop being asked for the rest of this task; ignored without approved=true, and on a card that has no such scope. Cannot be combined with always_allow.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "already": {
+      "description": "Whether this request had already been answered.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "run_id": {
+      "description": "The continuation run created by the answer.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "session_id": {
+      "description": "The continuation run's session.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Answer status.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool_call_id": {
+      "description": "The pending tool call that was answered.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "tool_call_id"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.1Aug 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / max_turn_seconds

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional soft wall-clock budget to preserve on the continuation run; it does not change the parked run or impose a hard deadline.",
+  "maximum": 14400,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0Aug 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / always_allow

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Approve AND stop asking for this tool on this agent (a standing grant). Only set it when the human explicitly said to stop being asked, and only on a row whose consent_tool is set; ignored without approved=true. Revoke via DELETE /v1/agents/{agent_id}/tool-consents/{tool}.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses a non-obvious and critical behavior: a successful answer starts a continuation run, and the returned run_id refers to that new run, not the parked one, and should be polled via get_run_result. Since annotations already carry destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, the description does not need to repeat them, though it could have warned about double-answering or consent 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose and mode selection, and the second sentence delivers the essential continuation-run caveat. There is no filler or redundant exposition.

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?

Given the rich parameter schema, annotations, and output schema, the description covers the key non-obvious flow: the continuation run and which run_id to poll. Consent and budget parameters are left to the schema, which is acceptable because the schema documents them thoroughly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter, but the description adds a helpful selection rule: use approved for approvals and value for input requests, and clarifies that run_id is the parked run and tool_call_id comes from list_pending_inputs. This goes slightly beyond a bare restatement, though most parameter-level detail remains in the schema.

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 names the exact action (answer), the target (a run paused on a human-input request), and the source (list_pending_inputs). It also distinguishes the two modes, approval vs input, which differentiates it clearly from sibling tools like list_pending_inputs or cancel_run.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly identifies when to use the tool: when a run is paused on a human-input request from list_pending_inputs, and it gives branch-level guidance for approvals vs input requests. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as cancel_run, so it misses the top anchor.

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