Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentGate

AgentGate

by agentkitai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

agentgate_request

Submit an approval request for an agent action. Returns a request ID and initial status to track human-in-the-loop verification.

Instructions

Submit an approval request. Returns request ID and initial status.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "agentgate_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction being requested (e.g., "send_email", "make_purchase")
paramsNoAction parameters (e.g., { to: "user@example.com", subject: "..." })
contextNoAdditional context for the approver
urgencyNoRequest urgency

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description omits behavioral details such as whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur, or permission requirements. The only added context is that it returns a request ID and status.

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?

The description is very concise with two sentences, both front-loaded with essential information. No extraneous content, though it could be slightly expanded without harming conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the approval workflow, how the request is processed, or how this fits with sibling tools. For a tool with four parameters and nested objects, more context is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the tool submits an approval request and specifies the return value (request ID and initial status). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like agentgate_decide or agentgate_create_policy, which could also involve approval workflows.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria for using agentgate_request.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools