SINT Protocol

sint__approve

Approve escalated security actions in the SINT Protocol by validating pending requests with their unique IDs to enforce policy compliance.

Instructions

Approve a pending escalated action by its request ID

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": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>"
    },
    "name": "sint__approve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`requestId`	Yes	The approval request ID to approve
`by`	No	Identifier of the approver (default: current agent)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 16, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation ('Approve') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., what happens after approval), rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely changes system state.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authorization, effects), response format, and usage context, failing to compensate for the missing structured data.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'requestId' identifies a pending action, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Approve') and resource ('a pending escalated action by its request ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sint__deny' (which presumably denies rather than approves) or 'sint__pending' (which might list pending actions), missing explicit sibling distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a pending action), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'sint__deny' for rejection scenarios, leaving usage context unclear.

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