Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
delian

ddflow

by delian
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

ddflow_gate

Manage quality gates for a work item: check status, list, run, record, verify, or skip gates, and run CI or tests. Use it to track gate outcomes and required evidence.

Instructions

Quality gates of a work item. Set action; required arguments in brackets: status(id), list, run(id,gate), record(id,gate,outcome), verify(id,gate), skip(id,gate,reason), ci, tests.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoItem whose worktree to mutate in.
opNoci: run | status (default).
refNoCommit to check (run).
baseNoCompare against this ref instead of the item's base.
fullNoWhole suite (run).
gateNoGate id. Must be a command gate.
itemNoThe item whose worktree and base to use.
modelNoREVIEWER's model, e.g. 'gemini-2.5-pro'.
sinceNoWith refuted: since this ISO date.
actionYesWhat to do; see the tool description for each action's arguments.
reasonNoWhy this step does not apply HERE. 'n/a' is not a reason: the next person reads this to decide whether you were right.
commandNoThe command you ran. With `exit_code` it makes an outcome evidence; a gate in `gates.evidence_required` is rejected without them.
outcomeNopassed | failed | unavailable | partial | skipped
refutedNoList the gates passed on refutation instead.
timeoutNorun: seconds this run may take (at most [gates].max_run_timeout_s).
approvalNoAn operator approval id (Q...) for this exact override; a refusal names it.
as_agentNoSubagent name, this call only.
evidenceNoWhat you ran and what it said. Required by some gates.
exit_codeNoThat command's exit code.
output_fileNoPath to its full output; a digest is recorded.
reviewed_shaNoCommit reviewed (roborev review <sha>); must be the branch.
reviewer_modelNoLike `model`; says it IS the reviewer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.9

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names actions such as run, record, verify, and skip, but does not state side effects, permissions, mutability, approval requirements, or what the actions return.

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?

The description is front-loaded, compact, and free of filler. The bracketed action argument mapping is dense but efficient, and every phrase contributes to invoking the tool.

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?

For a complex tool with 22 parameters, 8 actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It documents required action arguments but omits what the actions actually do, their side effects, and what callers should expect, leaving significant contextual gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful action-level semantics by mapping each action to its required arguments, which is essential for using the action parameter correctly across this multi-action tool.

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 states the domain clearly: 'Quality gates of a work item', and then enumerates the available gate actions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from every sibling, but the resource and action vocabulary make the purpose apparent.

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 bracketed action list gives required arguments for status, list, run, record, verify, skip, ci, and tests, which is useful invocation guidance. However, it does not explain when to choose one action over another or when not to use this tool.

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