Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

remove_approval_gate

Destructive

Remove an approval gate from a design, preset, or feature so merges on the target branch are no longer blocked by approval requirements.

Instructions

Remove an approval gate. Merges on the target branch return to unprotected. Business+ tier.

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": {
      "artifact_type": "<artifact_type>",
      "artifact_id": "<artifact_id>",
      "branch_name": "<branch_name>"
    },
    "name": "remove_approval_gate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
artifact_idYesThe id of the design, preset or feature whose gate is removed.
branch_nameYesThe protected target branch whose gate is removed, for example ``main``.
artifact_typeYesWhat the gate protects: ``"design"``, ``"preset"`` or ``"feature"``.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / artifact_id / description
      Added value: +"The id of the design, preset or feature whose gate is removed."
    • addedInput schema / properties / artifact_type / description
      Added value: +"What the gate protects: ``\"design\"``, ``\"preset\"`` or ``\"feature\"``."
    • addedInput schema / properties / branch_name / description
      Added value: +"The protected target branch whose gate is removed, for example ``main``."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the concrete effect is that merges to the target branch become unprotected. It also mentions the Business+ tier requirement, though it does not state whether the removal is reversible or how missing gates are handled.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the consequence. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a three-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers the core action, effect, and tier requirement. It could be slightly more complete with details on idempotency or error behavior when no gate exists.

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 input schema already documents artifact_id, branch_name, and artifact_type. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, which is the baseline case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove an approval gate.' It also clarifies the resulting state ('Merges on the target branch return to unprotected'), which distinguishes it from siblings like set_approval_gate and list_approval_gates.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The purpose implies when to use it, and the 'Business+ tier' note gives a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose it over alternatives such as set_approval_gate or what to do if no gate exists.

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