dashclaw

dashclaw_wait_for_approval

Wait for human approval on a pending action in DashClaw Mission Control. Polls the action status until approved or denied, with a configurable timeout.

Instructions

Wait for a human to approve or deny a pending action in DashClaw Mission Control. Call this after a guard decision returns "require_approval" or after recording an action with status "pending_approval". Polls the action status until it changes. Default timeout is 300 seconds (5 minutes).

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": {
      "action_id": "<action_id>"
    },
    "name": "dashclaw_wait_for_approval"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action_id`	Yes	The action ID to wait on (e.g., act_abc123)
`timeout_seconds`	No	Max wait time (default 300)
`poll_interval_seconds`	No	Polling frequency (default 3)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains polling behavior, default timeout (300 seconds), and that it waits until status changes. It does not disclose whether the action is interruptible or what happens on timeout, but overall fairly transparent.

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?

Two sentences with clear front-loading of purpose. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. Highly concise.

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?

No output schema exists, but description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., status after approval/denial). It covers usage context and behavior well but omits return value information.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it reiterates default timeout and mentions polling context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool waits for human approval/denial of a pending action. It specifies when to invoke: after guard decision returns 'require_approval' or after recording an action with 'pending_approval' status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve_action and reject_action.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool (after guard decision or pending approval). It provides a clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use, though the purpose is well-defined.

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

Deploy Server