Agile Today

Check a gate

check_gate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluates gate g.g0 … g.g10 against your evidence. Outcome precedence: Stop > Recycle > Hold > Conditional go > Go, with the rule that fired (outcome_reason). Critical evidence missing or stale → Hold; required non-critical missing, or a waiver without a reason or an approver who decides at this gate → Conditional go; a waiver with both → Go with the Waiver modifier (under regulation a waived critical artifact stays Conditional go until the deviation is recorded with the quality approval); optional gaps are notes. Modifiers: Work started without the gate, Overdue, Stale, Waiver. gate.deciders decide, gate.advisors take part. A disproved key product hypothesis is a Recycle, not a Stop: pass earlier_stage_invalid:true with invalid_stage:'st.discovery'. At G8 (go / no-go), work_started_beyond:true means production was changed before the decision: Hold (R3), not a Go with a modifier. Call without evidence to list what the gate needs. Returns a receipt hash of the inputs.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gate`	Yes	Gate id, e.g. g.g5
`lang`	No	Answer language, default en
`context`	No	Project context. Unknown keys and values are rejected in the answer envelope with did_you_mean. Defaults: software, hybrid, complicated, tm, single, medium size, ui, data.
`evidence`	No	Map artifact id → state or {state, reason, ref, by, date}. A waiver is {state:'waived', reason, by}: by is the role id of a decider of this gate (see gate.deciders, e.g. r.client_owner) or 'name, role'. Unknown ids are reported as warnings with a suggestion.
`grace_days`	No	Overrides both limits. Default: 80% of planned_stage_days, else by approach (predictive/hybrid 10, agile/flow 5); required evidence then waits twice as long
`days_in_stage`	No
`invalid_stage`	No	With earlier_stage_invalid: the stage to return to, if known
`invalid_artifact`	No	With earlier_stage_invalid: the artifact that is no longer true, to find where to return
`planned_stage_days`	No	Planned length of the stage in days. With it, missing critical evidence is overdue after 80% of it and missing required evidence after all of it
`business_case_valid`	No	false → Stop
`work_started_beyond`	No	True if work of later stages already started (adds the 'work started without the gate' modifier; at G8 it is a Hold)
`earlier_stage_invalid`	No	true → Recycle; the answer names the stage to return to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 3, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / evidence / additionalProperties / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "description": "present | missing | stale | waived",
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "by": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "date": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "reason": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "ref": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "state": {
-        "description": "present | missing | stale | waived",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "state"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "description": "present | missing | stale | waived",
+    "maxLength": 20,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "by": {
+        "maxLength": 200,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "date": {
+        "maxLength": 40,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "reason": {
+        "maxLength": 1000,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "ref": {
+        "maxLength": 500,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "state": {
+        "description": "present | missing | stale | waived",
+        "maxLength": 20,
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "state"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / evidence / propertyNames / maxLength
```
Added value: +100
```
addedInput schema / properties / gate / maxLength
```
Added value: +40
```
addedInput schema / properties / invalid_artifact / maxLength
```
Added value: +100
```
addedInput schema / properties / invalid_stage / maxLength
```
Added value: +100
```

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: outcome precedence (Stop > Recycle > Hold > Conditional go > Go), the state-to-outcome rules, modifier semantics, and the receipt hash return. It discloses the full decision logic an agent needs to predict behavior, and is consistent with the read-only, idempotent annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and precedence before drilling into edge cases, and every clause carries a rule rather than filler. It is nonetheless a single dense paragraph that mixes precedence, modifiers, and special cases, which makes it harder to scan than a structured breakdown would be.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the decision model and edge cases thoroughly and notes the receipt hash return. It only lightly characterizes the returned envelope (beyond the hash), which is the one small gap remaining.

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 92%, so the baseline is 3, and the description meaningfully exceeds it by explaining cross-parameter mechanics: earlier_stage_invalid must be paired with invalid_stage/invalid_artifact, and work_started_beyond flips to a Hold specifically at G8. These pairing/context rules add value beyond the field-level descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Evaluates gate g.g0 … g.g10 against your evidence') and even tells the agent what the call produces (a receipt hash), so the purpose is unambiguous. It never names or contrasts with siblings like validate_plan or check_mix, so it stops short of the explicit differentiation a 5 requires.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete invocation guidance for edge cases ('Call without evidence to list what the gate needs', 'pass earlier_stage_invalid:true with invalid_stage:'st.discovery'', 'at G8 ... work_started_beyond:true'). It does not, however, say when to reach for this tool over validate_plan or the other siblings, so no exclusions are provided.

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

All Agile Today tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?