SINT Protocol

sint__pending

View pending approval requests requiring human review in the SINT Protocol security gateway to manage AI agent tool access.

Instructions

List all pending approval requests awaiting human review

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sint__pending"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a listing operation but lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, permissions required, rate limits, or what constitutes 'pending' (e.g., timeframes, states). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 key information ('List all pending approval requests') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool and earns its place by clearly stating the purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple listing with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but omits behavioral details like return format or operational constraints, leaving gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate, but it does imply the scope ('all pending approval requests'), providing slight semantic context beyond the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 clearly states the specific action ('List all') and resource ('pending approval requests awaiting human review'), distinguishing it from siblings like sint__approve, sint__deny, or sint__audit. It precisely communicates a read-only listing function focused on pending items requiring review.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'pending approval requests awaiting human review,' suggesting this tool is for monitoring or managing approval workflows. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like sint__audit or provide exclusion criteria, leaving some ambiguity.

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