Skip to main content
Glama
DeepAgentLabs

deep-agentic-core-mcp

Official
by DeepAgentLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Unified Release Check

core.release_check

Decide release readiness with fail-closed validation of Lens comparison, Evals, and chaos evidence; missing, malformed, or failed required evidence blocks approval.

Instructions

Decide release readiness from a Lens comparison, an Evals report (judged by the Evals release gate) and a chaos.run_experiment report. Fails closed: required evidence that is missing, malformed or from a failed call blocks readiness. Comparison and chaos evidence default to this session.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
comparisonNoA lens/core.compare_runs result. Defaults to the session's last comparison.
session_idNoSession to read/write shared state under. Defaults to 'default'.
thresholdsNoEvals GateConfig fields (for example min_pass_rate, max_failed_cases). Unknown keys are rejected. The Evals default requires every case to pass.
chaos_reportNoA chaos.run_experiment result. Defaults to the session's last chaos report.
evaluation_reportNoA native Agentic Evals evaluation report.
required_evidenceNoEvidence kinds that must be present. Defaults to all three.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.4.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / chaos_report / description
      Added value: +"A chaos.run_experiment result. Defaults to the session's last chaos report."
    • addedInput schema / properties / comparison / description
      Added value: +"A lens/core.compare_runs result. Defaults to the session's last comparison."
    • addedInput schema / properties / evaluation_report / description
      Added value: +"A native Agentic Evals evaluation report."
    • addedInput schema / properties / required_evidence
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Evidence kinds that must be present. Defaults to all three.",
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "comparison",
+      "evaluation",
+      "chaos"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array",
+  "uniqueItems": true
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / thresholds / description
      Added value: +"Evals GateConfig fields (for example min_pass_rate, max_failed_cases). Unknown keys are rejected. The Evals default requires every case to pass."
  2. Addedv0.3.14

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=false, so the description does the heavy lifting: it discloses the fail-closed policy (missing, malformed, or failed-call evidence blocks readiness) and the session-defaulting behavior. It omits what the returned verdict looks like and whether it persists anything under session_id.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core decision plus its failure mode are front-loaded. Every clause carries operational meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a gating tool with six nested parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs and failure semantics but never says what a result contains (pass/fail verdict, per-evidence findings) or how required_evidence interacts with the defaults. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the session defaults and the Evals GateConfig semantics. The description repeats the session-defaulting point rather than adding syntax or precedence rules beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 outcome ('decide release readiness') plus the three evidence sources it consumes, which distinguishes it from generic verifiers like core.verify or tower.verify. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the listed inputs ('from a Lens comparison, an Evals report ... and a chaos.run_experiment report'), telling the agent roughly what must exist before calling. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for a lighter check.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools