Skip to main content
Glama
vmware-skills

vmware-pilot

by vmware-skills
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

approve

Resume a workflow awaiting human confirmation after explicit consent, then continue execution or return remaining steps for dispatch.

Instructions

[WRITE] Approve a workflow that is waiting for human confirmation.

Use this only after showing the user the pending step and getting explicit human consent; use cancel_workflow instead when the approval is rejected. Only works when workflow state is 'awaiting_approval'. After approval, execution continues to the next steps.

Without --dispatch, the steps before the gate are 'not_executed': Pilot has no record that they ran, whatever the gate's message says. approve refuses (listing them in not_executed_before_gate) until acknowledge_not_executed=True — set it only after you performed each of those steps yourself and showed the user their results. They are then recorded as 'reported_done' and not handed out again.

Note: with --dispatch, approving runs the next steps (this call takes as long as they do; if it times out in your client, Pilot carries on — check get_workflow_status once it answers again, and never perform those steps yourself). Without it, the remaining steps are recorded as 'not_executed' and the result carries outcome='dispatch_required' with a 'pending_dispatch' list for you to perform (see run_workflow); the workflow then never reaches 'completed'.

Returns: Updated workflow state after resuming.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
approverNoName of the person approving (for audit trail). Over an authenticated network transport leave it empty: the approver is the caller's token name, and a different name is refused.
workflow_idYesThe workflow ID to approve.
acknowledge_not_executedNoTrue says the steps before this gate were performed outside Pilot and their results were checked.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / acknowledge_not_executed
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "True says the steps before this gate were performed outside Pilot and their results were checked.",
+  "title": "Acknowledge Not Executed",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / approver / description
      Previous value: -"Name of the person approving (for audit trail)."New value: +"Name of the person approving (for audit trail). Over an authenticated network transport leave it empty: the approver is the caller's token name, and a different name is refused."
  3. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.11.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / approver / description
      Added value: +"Name of the person approving (for audit trail)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / workflow_id / description
      Added value: +"The workflow ID to approve."
  4. First observedv1.5.22

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the generic safety profile (write, non-idempotent, open-world), while the description discloses non-obvious behavior: refusal listing steps in not_executed_before_gate, the acknowledge_not_executed gate, the 'reported_done' vs 'not_executed' bookkeeping, timeout behavior ('Pilot carries on — check get_workflow_status'), and the outcome='dispatch_required'/'pending_dispatch' return semantics.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Content is valuable and mostly front-loaded, but the not_executed behavior is explained twice (once in the gate paragraph and again in the dispatch paragraph), and the CLI-style '--dispatch' framing adds noise to a JSON-parameter tool. Trimming the duplication would sharpen it without losing information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does reasonably well, stating 'Updated workflow state after resuming' and enumerating the dispatch_required outcome and pending_dispatch list. It is nearly complete for a complex stateful write; only the exact shape of the returned state is left unspecified.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real depth beyond the schema for acknowledge_not_executed ('set it only after you performed each of those steps yourself and showed the user their results') and explains the approver/auth interaction. It loses a point for repeatedly referencing a '--dispatch' flag that does not exist as a parameter in the schema, which could mislead an agent about the call signature.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and scope: '[WRITE] Approve a workflow that is waiting for human confirmation.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling cancel_workflow and names the required precondition (state 'awaiting_approval'), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use ('only after showing the user the pending step and getting explicit human consent'), when-not ('use cancel_workflow instead when the approval is rejected'), and a hard state prerequisite ('Only works when workflow state is awaiting_approval'). It also gives conditional guidance for the dispatch and acknowledge_not_executed paths.

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