Evaluates a fail-closed publish gate: if any blocking findings exist, publishing is blocked. Use it to check a candidate video artifact before release.
Evaluate the fail-closed publish gate; any blocking finding blocks publishing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_dir | Yes | ||
| blocking_findings | Yes | ||
| candidate_artifact | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important fail-closed decision semantics ('any blocking finding blocks publishing'), which is real behavioral value, but it says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether the gate writes anything.
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?
A single tight sentence with the gate's rule front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, so the constraint is completeness, not length.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a tool with three fully undocumented required parameters, no annotations, and non-obvious gating semantics, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and all three required parameters (project_dir, candidate_artifact, blocking_findings) are undocumented in both schema and description. The word 'finding' loosely gestures at blocking_findings, but format and provenance (who supplies these strings?) are unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Evaluate the ... publish gate') and adds the decisive rule ('any blocking finding blocks publishing'), so an agent knows it produces a go/no-go determination. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling video_publish_validate, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus video_publish_validate, video_release_checkpoint, or video_verdict, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must a candidate artifact already exist?). The gating rule implies a pre-publish context but the agent must infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.