Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIWorkhub

AIWorkhub

by shrec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

aiworkhub_manager_context_write_intent_dispose

Accept or reject a single worker context-write proposal, recording a justification so the proposed write is applied or declined.

Instructions

MANAGER WRITE: explicitly accept or reject one worker proposal.

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": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>",
      "intent_id": "<intent_id>",
      "decision": "<decision>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "aiworkhub_manager_context_write_intent_dispose"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYesNon-blank justification recorded with the decision, at most 2048 UTF-8 bytes.
decisionYesaccepted applies the proposed write, rejected does not; repeating the same decision is idempotent, the opposite one is refused.
intent_idYes64-character lowercase hex id of one proposal, as returned by aiworkhub_manager_context_write_intents.
request_idYesId of the worker request whose context-write proposal is being decided; its task must be in review state.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.12.67
    • addedInput schema / properties / decision / description
      Added value: +"accepted applies the proposed write, rejected does not; repeating the same decision is idempotent, the opposite one is refused."
    • addedInput schema / properties / intent_id / description
      Added value: +"64-character lowercase hex id of one proposal, as returned by aiworkhub_manager_context_write_intents."
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason / description
      Added value: +"Non-blank justification recorded with the decision, at most 2048 UTF-8 bytes."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of the worker request whose context-write proposal is being decided; its task must be in review state."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds little beyond emphasizing it is a write decision. It does not itself disclose that 'accepted' applies a real write or that repeated decisions are idempotent/refused — those facts live only in the schema. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One lean sentence with the action front-loaded and zero waste. It is efficiently sized, though the value could be slightly higher with a clause on when to call it versus the listing sibling.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and parameters are fully described, so the description needn't explain returns or field formats. However, for a mutation tool that finalizes a proposal, missing guidance on the review-state precondition and idempotency/refusal behavior (both buried in schema) leaves a gap at the description level.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (including the accepted/rejected enum and its idempotency semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what structured data provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb pair (accept/reject) and resource (one worker proposal), and the 'MANAGER WRITE' prefix signals the mutation scope. It is distinguishable from the read-side sibling aiworkhub_manager_context_write_intents, though the description never names 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: the schema's request_id description carries the prerequisite (task must be in review state) and intent_id points back to the listing tool. The description itself offers no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing, so the agent must open the schema to learn the precondition.

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