Odile Gate Oversight

Read run tree

gate_get_run_tree

Read-only

Returns one run and its delegated descendants without tokens; use it to inspect delegation and permission state instead of gate_get_run_timeline events. One run only; the project-wide log is gate_read_audit.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "admin_key": "<admin_key>",
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "gate_get_run_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`run_id`	Yes	The run id
`admin_key`	Yes	The project admin key (ga_...). Read it from the .env; never print it.
`project_id`	Yes	The project id from gate_create_project, e.g. p1a2b3...

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds a useful disclosure that tokens are omitted from the result. However, it says nothing about the depth or size of the descendant tree, whether the full subtree is returned in one call, or truncation behavior -- significant gaps for a tree-shaped read with no output schema.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core behavior and the token-omission caveat are front-loaded, followed by the disambiguation clauses. Every clause earns its place.

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 three-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, the definition covers purpose, scope, and alternatives well. The one real omission is any indication of tree depth or result size expectations, which matters for a descendants query.

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% and each parameter carries its own description, including the security note about never printing the admin key. The description reinforces that run_id scopes to a single run but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Returns one run and its delegated descendants") plus a meaningful scope qualifier ("without tokens"). It also distinguishes itself from two named siblings, so an agent can pick it without opening any 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?

It states the use case ("inspect delegation and permission state") and explicitly routes away from gate_get_run_timeline for event inspection and to gate_read_audit for the project-wide log. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives are all present.

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

All Odile Gate Oversight tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?