ActionGate

Policy Gate

policy_gate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Apply treasury policy to a proposed action and return allow, deny, or allow-with-limits. Paid via x402 or API key credits. Free tier: 10 policy gate calls/day per client.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "actor": "<actor>",
      "action": "<action>",
      "policy": "<policy>"
    },
    "name": "policy_gate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`actor`	Yes	Actor metadata for the agent proposing the action.
`action`	Yes	Action payload to evaluate. Additional action-specific fields are accepted as passthrough.
`policy`	Yes	Policy pack input, including policy_id and any policy-specific override values.
`context`	No	Optional execution context such as chain state, balances, or treasury metadata.
`request_id`	No	Optional caller-supplied request identifier for tracing and receipts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedMar 27, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / action / properties / action_type / minLength
```
Removed value: -1
```
- removedInput schema / properties / actor / properties / actor_id / minLength
```
Removed value: -1
```
- changedInput schema / properties / context / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -{}New value: +true
```
- addedInput schema / properties / context / properties
```
Added value: +{}
```
- changedInput schema / properties / policy / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -{}New value: +true
```
- addedInput schema / properties / policy / properties
```
Added value: +{}
```
First observedMar 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the payment mechanism ('Paid via x402 or API key credits') and rate limits ('Free tier: 10 policy gate calls/day per client'). This helps the agent anticipate costs and usage constraints.

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?

The description consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core function and return values; the second adds pricing and rate limit context. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 correctly specifies the high-level return values (allow, deny, allow-with-limits). It also includes billing and quota context. However, it does not describe the return object's structure (e.g., whether reasons or metadata are included), which would be helpful for an agent for full understanding, but the current coverage is adequate for basic invocation.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already contains, so it meets the baseline for good schema coverage without exceeding it.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('treasury policy') and clearly states the outcome ('return allow, deny, or allow-with-limits'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'risk_score' or 'simulate' by defining a distinct decision output.

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 intended use case is implied ('Apply treasury policy to a proposed action'), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tool names offer context but aren't referenced.

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

All ActionGate tools Inspect

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

Need Help?