Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Onplana

by io.github.Onplana
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

list_gate_approvals

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the calling agent's gate-approval inbox (ProposalGateApproval rows where reviewer = caller). Default status=PENDING (your queue: seats whose proposal is still waiting on that gate, in the gate's current review round); pass status=APPROVED/REJECTED to see your decision history, where round says which time the proposal was at that gate. Reviewers with org.governance.review can pass reviewerId to inspect another user's queue (e.g. admin auditing). On the PENDING queue, awaiting lists the proposals at a review gate the reviewer sits on the panel of with no seat for them in the current round and no review by them since, the same list the web My Approvals shows; it is empty while that list is switched off. PREFER submit_proposal_review to act on a PENDING row or an awaiting proposal. Plan gate: governance (ENTERPRISE+).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_gate_approvals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoDefault 50, max 100.
statusNo
reviewerIdNoDefault = caller. Org-tier admins can inspect other reviewers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the default filter, the meaning of `round`, the semantics of the `awaiting` list, the fact that `awaiting` is empty when the web feature is toggled off, the permission required for cross-reviewer inspection, and the ENTERPRISE+ plan gate. These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition and default, then layered with the optional modes and the preferred action tool. The sentence explaining `awaiting` is long and clause-heavy, but no sentence is filler — every one carries a distinct constraint or semantic.

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 carries the return-value burden and does explain key response fields (`round`, `awaiting`) and edge conditions. It does not describe the general row shape or pagination beyond the limit parameter, which is a modest gap for a list tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description compensates for the undescribed `status` enum by explaining what PENDING means versus APPROVED/REJECTED and what `round` conveys in each case; it also contextualizes reviewerId with the permission requirement. Only `limit` is left entirely to the schema, so it stops just short of full compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Return the calling agent's gate-approval inbox (ProposalGateApproval rows where reviewer = caller)' — and immediately disambiguates the underlying data model from neighboring concepts like proposal reviews and workflow approvals. An agent can tell what it gets back without opening the 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?

Explicitly states the default behavior (status=PENDING is 'your queue'), when to switch (pass APPROVED/REJECTED for decision history), when to use reviewerId (org.governance.review holders auditing), and names the alternative for taking action: 'PREFER submit_proposal_review to act on a PENDING row.' This is full when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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

All Onplana toolsInspect
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