check_usage_permittedCheck if a governance block's terms permit a specific usage type, including inference, training, redistribution, derivative, or caching.
Check if a specific usage type is permitted under a governance block's terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| block | Yes | Governance block JSON string | |
| usage | Yes |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description adds only the semantic scope (usage vs. a block's terms) and discloses nothing further, such as the shape of the verdict or error behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification for a governance predicate rather than excess.
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?
With rich annotations and no output schema, the description should at least pin down the return verdict and how this check differs from the other check_* predicates. 'Check if ... is permitted' implies a boolean but never states it, and the sibling routing gap leaves selection partly to inference.
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 50%: the 'block' parameter is described as a governance block JSON string, while the 'usage' enum values carry no descriptions. The description clarifies that usage is evaluated against a block's terms, but adds no format detail for the block JSON or semantics for the enum values, which are largely self-explanatory.
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 names a specific verb and resource: checking whether a given usage type is permitted under a governance block's terms. It is reasonably distinguishable from nearby predicates like check_purpose_permitted or check_combination_permitted by the word 'usage', but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as check_purpose_permitted, check_retention_expired, and check_combination_permitted, the agent is left to infer when this predicate applies instead of those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.