Skip to main content
Glama

workflow_sentinel

Read-only

Identify workflow risk, blast radius, and remediations before tool call execution, allowing proactive prevention of costly agent mistakes.

Instructions

Predict pre-action workflow risk, blast radius, and remediations before a tool call executes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolNameNoTool being assessed, such as Bash, Edit, or Write. Optional when provider-native tool call payload is supplied.
providerNoOptional provider name, such as anthropic, openai, codex, cursor, gemini, or mcp
modelNoOptional model name used for audit evidence and budget review
providerToolCallNoProvider-native tool call object, including Anthropic tool_use or OpenAI function/tool call shapes
contentNoProvider-native message content blocks; Anthropic tool_use blocks are normalized automatically
methodNoOptional JSON-RPC/MCP method, such as tools/call
paramsNoOptional JSON-RPC/MCP params, including tools/call name and arguments, resources/read URI, or prompts/get template arguments
usageNoProvider token/cost usage, such as input_tokens, output_tokens, or total_tokens
tokenEstimateNoEstimated total tokens for this action when provider usage is unavailable
costUsdNoEstimated USD cost for this action when provider usage is unavailable
budgetNoOptional per-action budget controls: maxTokensPerAction, remainingTokens, maxCostUsdPerAction, remainingCostUsd, maxParallelBranches
workflowPatternNoOptional workflow architecture hint. Agents require inspection evidence; predefined workflows are easier to evaluate.
workflowNoOptional workflow metadata: pattern, steps, routes, branches, tools, inspection, and verification evidence.
goalNoOptional agent goal for open-ended tool planning.
toolsNoOptional abstract/combinable tool names available to an open-ended agent.
branchesNoOptional parallel workflow branches for fan-out budget and review checks.
stepsNoOptional predefined workflow steps for chaining/evaluator workflow audit evidence.
routesNoOptional routing workflow destinations or classes.
commandNoOptional shell command when toolName is Bash
filePathNoOptional primary file path for edit-like tools
changedFilesNoOptional affected-file list used to estimate blast radius
repoPathNoOptional repository path used for git-aware integrity checks
baseBranchNoOptional protected base branch override (defaults to main)
requirePrForReleaseSensitiveNoWhen true, release-sensitive changes on non-base branches require an open PR
requireVersionNotBehindBaseNoWhen true, release-sensitive changes cannot lag behind the base branch package version
Behavior3/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates no state modification. The description adds 'pre-action' context, but does not disclose return format, performance implications, or what 'blast radius' entails. It is consistent but adds limited behavioral depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence without fluff. It could be slightly expanded to include usage context, but it remains efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 25 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'blast radius' or 'remediations' mean, nor what the return value contains. Sibling tools like 'enforcement_matrix' may require further differentiation.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it is a general statement. Thus, no improvement beyond schema.

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?

The description clearly states it predicts risk, blast radius, and remediations before execution. The verb 'predict' and resource 'workflow risk' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'enforcement_matrix' or 'prevention_rules' by being pre-action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to call it before a tool call or which scenarios require it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/IgorGanapolsky/ThumbGate'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server