Check an approval request's current status (pending, approved, denied, or expired) and read the reviewer's note once resolved; safe to poll without blocking.
Read the current state of one approval request: pending,
approved, denied, or expired, plus the reviewer's note once
resolved. Safe to poll; it never blocks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| approval_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavior: it is a read operation, it is safe to poll, it never blocks, and it returns status plus reviewer note once resolved. It does not mention authorization, rate limits, or not-found behavior, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, first stating what is read and then adding the important non-blocking polling behavior. Every sentence adds value with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has one parameter, and has an output schema, so return values need not be fully described. The description covers statuses and behavior well. Its main gap is the undocumented approval_id parameter, which is the only notable omission for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter, approval_id, with 0% description coverage. The tool description refers to 'one approval request' but adds no meaning about the ID format, source, or constraints. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: reading one approval request and its current state. It enumerates the possible states and the reviewer note, making the purpose clear. It implicitly differentiates from wait_for_approval by saying it never blocks, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Safe to poll; it never blocks' gives clear usage context: this is the non-blocking polling option. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with wait_for_approval, nor does it state when to prefer that alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.