Skip to main content
Glama

KnownGate

by com.knowngate

check_plan

Read-only

Rule a set of items at once: a recipe's ingredients, a basket, several days. Needs a key (Authorization: Bearer kg_live_…); create a free one with the register tool. Up to 25 subjects, one call, one verdict per item plus a summary line. Each item carries its own evidence, source and read date.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
thresholdsNoNumeric premise (beta): per-serving nutrient bounds ruled against the product's typed panel. Unknown values refuse honestly, never zero. An empty array means no numeric limits.
restrictionsYesHousehold restrictions. FDA-9 keys ("peanut", "sesame", "milk", …) as strings, or { key, note } when a note matters (e.g. { key: "tree_nut", note: "cashew" }). May be empty when thresholds carry the premise.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: one call returns one verdict per item plus a summary line, and each item carries evidence, source, and read date. It does not contradict the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is compact, with three focused sentences covering purpose, authentication, limits, and output behavior. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary filler, though 'Rule a set of items' is slightly awkward phrasing.

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?

For a batch read tool with no output schema, the description provides essential return-shape context (per-item verdicts, summary line, evidence, source, read date) plus authentication guidance. It could be more complete by mentioning thresholds/restrictions semantics, but the input schema covers those details adequately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not meaningfully explain the input parameters beyond noting the 25-item cap. The schema already documents items, thresholds, and restrictions reasonably well (67% coverage), but the description itself adds no parameter-level semantic value, such as how thresholds or restrictions should be formatted or chosen.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description communicates that this tool evaluates or 'rules' a batch of items in a single call, with examples like ingredients, a basket, or several days. It distinguishes itself from singular check_item by emphasizing 'at once,' though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

It clearly states the batch use case, the 25-subject limit, and the requirement for an API key obtained via register. It gives concrete context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to check_item/check_venue.

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

All KnownGate toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

check_item, check_plan, and check_venue are cleanly separated by scope: a single food, a batch/plan up to 25 items, and a venue-level chart. register is clearly the auth/key-creation step and cannot be confused with the checking operations.

Naming Consistency4/5

The three core tools follow a consistent check_<noun> snake_case pattern, which makes their behavior predictable. register is a clear, conventional name but breaks the verb_noun pattern, so the set is not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is a well-scoped set for this server: one necessary registration step plus three checking operations at increasing levels of granularity. Each tool has a distinct purpose and nothing feels redundant or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The checking surface is essentially complete: single items, composite plans, and venue charts are all covered, and register provides the required key. The only notable gap is that household premise/restriction configuration is not exposed through MCP, so agents must rely on that being set up outside the server.

Resources