@cubiczan/chp-mcp

evaluate_spend_gate

Checks a proposed action against Profile B spend gate, returning LOCKED, HITL_REQUIRED, or BLOCKED with claims and hash. Hard violations cannot be overridden; BLOCKED is written to the audit ledger.

Instructions

Run CHP Profile B capital/spend gate on a proposed action. Returns LOCKED, HITL_REQUIRED, or BLOCKED with claims and a content hash. Hard policy violations cannot be overridden by a human. BLOCKED is also written as a structured policy_deny to the CHP-signed audit ledger.

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "policy": "<policy>"
    },
    "name": "evaluate_spend_gate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	Proposed trade / spend / mandate action
`policy`	Yes	Gate policy (limits, HITL threshold, confidence floor)
`committed_today`	No	Notional already committed today toward daily_cap (default 0)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Explicitly describes return values (LOCKED, HITL_REQUIRED, BLOCKED), the side effect of writing a policy_deny to the audit ledger on BLOCKED, and the non-overridable nature of hard violations. This gives a clear picture of the tool's behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then efficiently cover outcomes and side effects. No redundant or vague wording.

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 adequately explains the expected return statuses, the content hash, and the audit ledger side effect. It does not detail the structure of 'claims', but that is not essential for invoking the tool.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (action, policy, committed_today) with meaningful context. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies.

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 ('Run'), resource ('CHP Profile B capital/spend gate'), and scope ('proposed action'). It does not name sibling tools, but the specificity of the gate and its profile makes its purpose clear.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'approve_spend' or 'request_authorization'. It only describes what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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

Deploy Server