Check if a user has permission to approve a scheduled instruction by its ID, returning a simple yes/no result to prevent unauthorized approvals.
Check whether the calling user can approve the given Scheduled Instruction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Scheduled Instruction ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a non-mutating read-only check through the verb 'Check whether' and the phrase 'can approve' rather than 'approve'. It does not describe the return format or error behavior, but the predicate nature is clear and sufficient for a simple permission check.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose and scope.
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: one required id, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description states the action, resource, and actor ('calling user'), providing enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly. Explicit return-type and error details are absent but not critical given the straightforward predicate semantics.
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 input schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter with 'Scheduled Instruction ID', providing 100% schema description coverage. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond confirming the target is 'the given' Scheduled Instruction, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('Scheduled Instruction'), and a precise scope ('whether the calling user can approve'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like approvals_approve_scheduled_instruction (which performs the approval) and approvals_can_approve_instruction / approvals_can_approve_persistent_instruction (different instruction types).
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 description gives clear context: use this tool when you need to determine if the calling user is permitted to approve a specific Scheduled Instruction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource type is unambiguous and the agent can infer when to use it from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.