Skip to main content
Glama

policy-gate

by dev.workers.3labsio.policy-gate

policy_check

Evaluate a proposed agent action against a policy and return allow / require_approval / deny with the matched rule and rationale. Paid per call via x402 ($0.005 USDC on Base); returns signing instructions when unpaid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ledgerNoOptional cumulative exposure for the window. A per-action gate cannot see repetition: 49 payments of $40 each pass a $50 rule individually. Omit it and any policy declaring a cumulative bound returns deny with ledger_required — a cap you can skip by omitting state is decorative. Explicit zeros are an answer; an absent object is not.
policyNoYour own policy document, evaluated instead of ours
requestYes
policy_idNoBuilt-in policy id; see policy_rules. "default-action-tiers-capped" adds a cumulative spend bound.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid per call via x402 cost and the unpaid signing-instructions behavior, which is valuable context. It also states the output format; the word 'proposed' implies no action execution, though it does not state this explicitly.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and outcomes, with no filler. The cost note is essential and compactly integrated.

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?

The description covers the core outcome vector and the payment failure mode, which is sufficient for a tool with no output schema. It does not mention cumulative ledger edge cases, but those are documented in the parameter schema, so overall it is reasonably complete.

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?

The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, but the input schema provides 75% coverage with rich descriptions for request.action, ledger fields, and policy_id. Since coverage is neither very high nor very low, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it evaluates a proposed agent action against a policy and returns allow/require_approval/deny with rule and rationale. This is a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like policy_rules or policy_example.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It provides no exclusions or references to sibling tools like policy_rules, policy_example, or first_42_sponsor.

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

All policy-gate 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one handles sponsorship/payment, one evaluates policies, one provides examples, and one exposes the rules. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Three of the four tools follow a consistent 'policy_' prefix pattern (policy_check, policy_example, policy_rules). The outlier 'first_42_sponsor' breaks the pattern but remains readable and aligns with its specific function.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is an appropriate count for a policy-gate service: payment, checking, examples, and rules. It is neither sparse nor bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of the service: payment via first_42_sponsor, evaluation via policy_check, transparency via policy_example, and documentation via policy_rules. No obvious gaps are present.

Resources