Read the enforced, read-only merge-gate policy to learn the fixed rules behind MERGE, BLOCK, or INCONCLUSIVE verdicts; agents cannot alter these constraints.
What this server enforces. Read-only: the agent cannot change it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is read-only and that the agent cannot change the enforced policy, but it omits any detail about permissions, rate limits, or the nature of the enforcement data returned.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no wasted words and front-loads the read-only constraint. Its brevity is appropriate, though the first sentence remains vague rather than informative.
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?
Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, it remains incomplete because it does not clarify the tool's purpose relative to verify_repo or provide usage context, leaving the agent with a minimally viable definition.
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?
The tool takes no parameters and the input schema is an empty object. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, since the description need not add parameter meaning beyond an empty schema.
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?
The description states the resource content ('What this server enforces') but uses no specific verb to say what the tool does with it. It does not distinguish this tool from its sibling verify_repo, leaving the agent to infer that it retrieves a policy.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_repo. The read-only note implies it can be read, but provides no trigger or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.