General Decision MCP

jev_gate

Read-only

Combines independent patch-review dimensions and completion-claim checks, returning the weakest judgment as an advisory gate signal without granting deployment authorization or executing actions.

Instructions

Combine independent patch-review dimensions and completion-claim checks; the weakest judgment governs and never authorizes deployment. Advisory only; never grants authorization or executes actions.

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": {
      "request": "<request>",
      "diff": "<diff>",
      "evidence": "<evidence>",
      "claims": "<claims>"
    },
    "name": "jev_gate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`diff`	Yes
`files`	No	File names are labels only, never paths to read.
`scope`	No	Known consequence scope; omitted means unknown and requires human review.
`tests`	No
`claims`	Yes
`request`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes	Supplied text only; no files or URLs are fetched.
`tests_passed`	No
`evidence_complete`	No	Caller attests supplied evidence is complete; omitted means incomplete. Not independent verification.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	Yes
`error`	No
`model`	Yes
`usage`	Yes
`policy`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`answers`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes
`provider`	Yes
`schema_version`	Yes
`requested_model`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the weakest-dimension aggregation rule and the guarantee that output never grants authorization or triggers execution. It does not explain what happens on missing or contradictory inputs, which matters for a 9-parameter gate.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the combine operation and followed by the governing rule and the advisory constraint. No filler, though the semicolon-chained clauses pack several distinct claims into each sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers the aggregation and authorization posture. However, for a gate taking diffs, claims, evidence, and a consequence scope, it omits how scope or evidence_complete affect the verdict, leaving meaningful gaps relative to the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 44% across 9 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It never mentions diff, claims, evidence, tests, tests_passed, or the scope enum values (production/security/external), leaving the highest-risk inputs documented only by their schema snippets.

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 names a specific operation ("combine independent patch-review dimensions and completion-claim checks") and states the aggregation rule ("the weakest judgment governs"), which is enough to tell it apart from a plain review or verify tool. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

"Never authorizes deployment" and "advisory only" imply the usage context (pre-deployment gating where the caller still decides), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus jev_review, jev_verify, or jev_decide. The agent must infer the routing from the aggregation semantics.

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

Deploy Server