AgentGate

agentgate_decide

Approve or deny pending agent requests as the designated approver, providing your decision and optional reason.

Instructions

Approve or deny a pending request. Use when you are the designated approver.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "decision": "<decision>"
    },
    "name": "agentgate_decide"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Request ID
`reason`	No	Reason for decision (optional)
`decision`	Yes	Your decision
`decidedBy`	No	Who is making this decision (default: "mcp:user")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructive nature, authorization requirements, or side effects. It only states the action without additional context on what changes occur or prerequisites needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and usage condition. Every sentence is necessary and no redundant information.

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?

With no output schema and minimal behavioral clues, the description lacks completeness about return values, error states, or prerequisites (e.g., the request must exist and be pending). The parameter details are well-covered by the schema, but the overall context for a decision action is only partially addressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the descriptions already define each parameter. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the purpose; no additional syntax or format details are provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the action (approve or deny) and the resource (pending request). Distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Use when you are the designated approver,' which sets it apart from request creation tools like agentgate_request.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Use when you are the designated approver'), providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives, though the sibling list offers some contrast.

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

Deploy Server