Odile Gate

Explain a refused call

gate_explain_refusal

Read-only

What a Gate refusal means and how to fix it, from the x-gate-refused header value (e.g. route_not_allowed).

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": {
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "gate_explain_refusal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	Yes	The x-gate-refused value
`recoverable`	No	Whether the write was granted with a recovery check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / recoverable

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Whether the write was granted with a recovery check",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false) already establish this is a safe, local read. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing what the tool produces — an explanation of the refusal plus remediation guidance — which matters since there is no output schema. It does not mention any auth, rate-limit, or failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the purpose, the input source, and a concrete example value, with no filler. 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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of indicating what comes back (meaning + fix). It is slightly thin on how 'recoverable' alters the explanation and does not describe the response shape, but for a simple two-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description ties 'reason' to the x-gate-refused header value, but that mapping is already in the schema text, and the 'recoverable' parameter is not addressed in the description at all. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action on a specific resource: it explains a Gate refusal and how to remedy it, keyed off the x-gate-refused header value. That is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling (none of the listed gate_* tools do refusal explanation, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The trigger is implied by 'from the x-gate-refused header value' and the example 'route_not_allowed', so an agent can infer it should call this after receiving a refusal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for other diagnostic needs.

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

All Odile Gate 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?