salesforce-metadata-mcp

Create Salesforce Approval Process

sf_create_approval_process

Idempotent

Creates or updates Salesforce approval processes by defining who can submit, approval steps with approvers, entry criteria, and actions on approval or rejection.

Instructions

Creates or updates a Salesforce Approval Process via the Metadata API. Define who can submit, approval steps with approvers, entry criteria, and what happens on approval or rejection.

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": {
      "objectName": "<objectName>",
      "processName": "<processName>",
      "label": "<label>",
      "allowedSubmitters": "<allowedSubmitters>",
      "approvalSteps": "<approvalSteps>"
    },
    "name": "sf_create_approval_process"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	Yes	Human-readable label, e.g. 'Large Deal Approval Process'
`active`	No	Activate immediately (warning: cannot change steps after activation)
`objectName`	Yes	Object API name, e.g. 'Opportunity' or 'Leave_Request__c'
`allowRecall`	No	Allow submitters to recall approval requests
`description`	No	Description of the approval process
`processName`	Yes	API name of the process, e.g. 'Large_Deal_Approval'
`entryFormula`	No	Formula records must satisfy to enter this process
`approvalSteps`	Yes	Ordered list of approval steps
`emailTemplate`	No	Email template for approval notifications, e.g. 'unfiled$public/ApprovalEmail'
`allowedSubmitters`	Yes	Who can submit: [{type:'owner'}] or [{type:'role', submitter:'SalesRep'}]
`finalApprovalLock`	No	Lock record after final approval
`recordEditability`	No	Who can edit locked records during approval	AdminOnly
`finalRejectionLock`	No	Lock record after final rejection
`entryFilterCriteria`	No	Filter criteria alternative to entryFormula

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.5Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already indicate idempotency and non-read-only behavior. The description adds that it uses the Metadata API and can create or update, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral nuances like the irreversibility of activation (which is only in the schema). This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long, with the action immediately stated. Every phrase adds value—the verb, resource, API method, and key configurable aspects—without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With 14 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a useful overview of the tool's capabilities, while the rich schema and annotations cover the detailed semantics. It could mention return values or activation warnings, but these are either obvious from the create/update context or present in the schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema provides 100% detailed descriptions of all 14 parameters, so the description doesn't need to add much. It lists high-level categories (submitters, steps, approvers, entry criteria, actions) that map to parameters, but adds no new semantic detail.

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 uses specific verb 'Creates or updates' and names the resource 'Salesforce Approval Process' via 'Metadata API', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sf_create_validation_rule or sf_create_workflow_rule.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's domain (approval processes) and the operation (create/update), making it obvious when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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