Check a gate session's current status to identify missing required reviews and confirm whether a commit is allowed.
Check the current status of a gate session — which gates have been registered, which are missing, and whether commit is allowed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | The gate session ID to check |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must reveal behavior, and it does disclose that this is a read-only operation (checking status) and what information it returns. However, it does not mention any side effects (likely none), error conditions, or performance implications. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.
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?
The description is one sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Check the current status of a gate session') followed by detailed specifics. It is concise with no wasted words, earning a high score.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it states what it does and what information is returned. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or format of 'which gates' but that is minor given the context. An agent can likely use it correctly with this description.
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?
The schema description covers 100% of the parameter (session_id has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating that it's a session ID; it doesn't clarify the format or provide examples. The schema already gives the essential info.
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 clearly states the tool checks the current status of a gate session, listing the specific information it provides (registered gates, missing gates, commit allowed). This is a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('gate session'), and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the purpose is unambiguous enough to distinguish from create/register/commit tools.
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?
The description implies its usage context by describing what it checks, making it clear this is for inspecting session state rather than creating or modifying. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.