Approve or deny an OpenCode session permission request by replying once, always, or reject.
Respond to a permission request: reply 'once'|'always'|'reject'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Session ID | |
| reply | Yes | ||
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. | |
| permissionID | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never explains what each reply actually does (grant once? persist a standing approval? deny and what happens next?). For a decision tool whose 'always' option likely has lasting security consequences, this omission is significant.
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?
A single terse sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the extreme brevity is more a symptom of under-specification than of disciplined conciseness.
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?
For a mutation/decision tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what happens after a reply, whether 'always' is durable, or how the request ID was obtained.
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?
Schema coverage is only 50%, and the required permissionID parameter has no description in either the schema or the description. The description merely restates the reply enum values that the schema already enumerates, adding no meaning about id, permissionID, or how replies are scoped.
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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Respond to a permission request,' and enumerates the valid replies. It implicitly distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like opencode_permission_list, but never names that sibling or explains how a pending request is discovered, so differentiation is only partial.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the related opencode_permission_list tool that presumably surfaces the requests being answered. An agent must infer the entire workflow on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.