Create a ProxyGateway enforcement boundary to control two-phase approvals and pending limits per agent.
[deprecated in v3.0.0 — use gateway.aeoess.com REST API] Create a ProxyGateway enforcement boundary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gatewayId | No | Custom gateway ID | |
| approvalTTLSeconds | No | Two-phase approval timeout | |
| maxPendingPerAgent | No | Max pending approvals per agent |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only restates the creation purpose and provides a deprecation notice; it does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or output behavior for this mutation tool.
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 a single sentence with the deprecation warning front-loaded. Every word contributes value, and no space is wasted.
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?
The deprecation notice provides essential context for not using the tool, and the schema covers all parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to mention return values or side effects, though the deprecation reduces the need for full operational detail.
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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema fully documents the three parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the specific resource ('ProxyGateway enforcement boundary'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes this from related gate tools by naming the ProxyGateway resource type explicitly.
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?
The description explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and names the alternative ('use gateway.aeoess.com REST API'). This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance and directs the agent to the correct replacement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.