Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-governance MCP server

agent-governance MCP server

by Geomanti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

propose_issue_note

Propose an issue note pending human consent; cannot set owner, due date, or status.

Instructions

Propose an issue note. Applies only after a human consents; cannot set an owner, due date or status.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "propose_issue_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: the operation requires human consent and is constrained from setting owner, due date, or status. It leaves gaps around whether the note is persisted/pending, reversibility, and permissions, but the consent gating and field restrictions are meaningful beyond the tool name.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core behavior plus the consent constraint are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a consent-gated proposal tool with no annotations, the description covers the key conditional behavior and field restrictions; only post-consent semantics and the note parameter remain unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single 'note' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it at all — no format, length, or markdown expectations. With one undocumented parameter, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Propose an issue note'), which is clearly distinguishable from the read-only siblings (read_issue, read_digest, read_ledger, read_audit_log) and from draft_update, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with draft_update. Purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

Provides an explicit precondition for use: 'Applies only after a human consents.' That tells the agent the gating condition for invoking it. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., draft_update) or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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