get_gatesAccess verification checklists and pre-completion gate reports to validate deliverables before marking work complete.
Returns references/02-GATES.md — verification checklists, THE GATE (pre-completion verification), and structured report templates for every deliverable type. Load when you need to verify work before claiming completion. ~9KB.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructiveikuha. The description adds meaningful context about the returned file's contents and its size (~9KB), which goes beyond what annotations alone convey. No contradiction exists.
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?
Two compact sentences front-load the core return value and follow with a practical usage trigger and size estimate. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly and understand what to expect. The annotations handle safety, and the description handles content and purpose.
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 tool has zero parameters)Skip, so there is no parameter schema to supplement. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than any parameter details, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
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 states a clear verb ('Returns') and a specific resource (references/02-GATES.md), and further describes what it contains: verification checklists, THE GATE, and structured report templates. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_protocols or get_anti_patterns, so an agent can tell them apart.
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?
It gives explicit guidance on when to use it: 'Load when you need to verify work before claiming completion.' It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selection among the listed siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.