policy_example
Free. Worked allow/require_approval/deny verdicts from the live policy engine, so you can judge the service before paying for it.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
policy-gate
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
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 reveals that the tool is free and returns verdicts from a live engine, but it does not mention side effects, safety, rate limits, or whether the live engine has any impact. The description lacks information about behavior beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (one sentence plus a fragment), but the phrasing is awkward and contains a typo. The sentence is front-loaded with 'Free' but then becomes verbose with 'so you can judge the service before paying for it'. It is concise but not polished.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the key purpose (verdicts) and value proposition (free trial). However, it does not explain the output format or explicitly differentiate from policy_check and policy_rules, leaving some context gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter details.
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 it returns allow/require_approval/deny verdicts from the live policy engine, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it's free and for pre-purchase evaluation. The minor typo ('Worked' instead of 'Works') slightly weakens clarity, but the intent is clear.
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 description implies usage for evaluating the service before payment ('so you can judge the service before paying for it'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (first_42_sponsor, policy_check, policy_rules). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
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.