Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-convention-gate

mcp-convention-gate

by dvir-shamay
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

register_gate

Register the outcome of a review gate, including pass/fail/warn and findings, to update the gate session's status.

Instructions

Register that a review gate has been completed. Called by each agent after finishing its review. The gate result (pass/fail/warn) and any findings are recorded.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "gate_name": "<gate_name>",
      "result": "<result>"
    },
    "name": "register_gate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentNoIdentity of the reviewing agent
resultYesGate result: pass (no blockers), fail (blocking issues found), warn (non-blocking issues)
findingsNoList of findings from the review
metadataNoAdditional metadata (model used, duration, etc.)
gate_nameYesName of the gate/agent (e.g., "code-reviewer", "security-auditor")
session_idYesThe gate session ID (from create_gate_session)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the gate result and findings are recorded, making the write nature explicit. However, it does not mention idempotency, whether duplicate registrations are allowed, or whether the registration finalizes the gate session or affects guarded_commit.

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?

Two focused sentences, with the core action first and the caller context second. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: who calls it, when, and what data it records. It could further explain side effects or the relationship to gate_status/guarded_commit, but the existing guidance is sufficient for correct selection and basic invocation.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no syntax, format, or relationship details beyond the schema; it only mentions gate result and findings, which are already described.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Register that a review gate has been completed.' Adds lifecycle context with 'Called by each agent after finishing its review,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_gate_session and gate_status without opening their schemas.

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?

Clearly states when the tool should be called: after each agent finishes its review. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the lifecycle cue ('after finishing its review') provides clear context that prevents confusion with session creation or status checks.

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