apex_run_agent_release_readiness_gateRun the allowlisted permissionless bounded release checklist gate. DATA ONLY, read-only, no HMAC required; evaluates caller-supplied booleans/evidence and never deploys, publishes, reads files, or calls CI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build | No | ||
| tests | No | ||
| checks | No | ||
| rollback | No | ||
| typecheck | No | ||
| monitoring | No | ||
| secret_scan | No | ||
| no_raw_source | No | ||
| license_review | No | ||
| signed_wrappers | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation is present, but the description adds significant context: 'DATA ONLY, read-only, no HMAC required' and a list of actions it never takes. This goes beyond the annotation to clarify side-effect-free behavior and authentication requirements, making the tool's operational boundaries clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, constraints, and safety profile. Every clause adds meaningful content with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what the gate returns (e.g., pass/fail), how to interpret results, or how parameters should be structured beyond being booleans. This leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, leaving the burden on the description. The description only vaguely mentions 'caller-supplied booleans/evidence' but does not explain the meaning of specific fields like 'build', 'tests', 'rollback', or 'secret_scan'. This insufficiently compensates for the undocumented schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs a 'release checklist gate', with a specific verb and resource. It adds operational context like 'allowlisted permissionless bounded' which helps differentiate it from other gate tools such as apex_run_btc_gate or apex_run_strategy_gatekeeper. The jargon-heavy phrasing slightly obscures clarity but the core function is evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage in scenarios where a read-only, permissionless, HMAC-free checklist evaluation is needed, and explicitly lists actions it never performs (deploy, publish, read files, call CI). However, it doesn't mention alternative tools or provide when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance beyond these safety constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions provide sufficient boundaries. Some run_* analytics tools (e.g., deflated_sharpe vs empyrical_metrics) could be conceptually confused, but their specific inputs and outputs minimize ambiguity.
All tools share the apex_ prefix, and the verb_noun pattern is consistent (get, query, run, submit). The 'agent_' subgroup within run tools introduces a minor irregularity, but it remains readily comprehensible.
With 24 tools, the server is on the heavy side, falling into the 16-25 range. Many run_* tools are similar in nature (pure calculations), but each appears to serve a specific purpose, so the count is borderline rather than excessive.
The server name implies a card store, yet the tool surface only supports reading and querying cards, with no create, update, or delete operations. This is a significant gap that prevents full lifecycle management, though the analytics side is fairly comprehensive.