Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Infraveil MCP server

Infraveil MCP server

Official
by infraveilhq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

evaluate_deploy_gate

Evaluate a proposed change against deploy policy to see if it passes and which gates it triggers, without submitting a deploy request.

Instructions

Evaluate the deploy gate WITHOUT requesting a deploy: returns whether a proposed change would pass policy, and which checks gate it. Read-only — use this to reason before calling request_deploy.

summary: optional human description of the intended change.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "evaluate_deploy_gate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
summaryNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'WITHOUT requesting a deploy', which is clear about non-destructive behavior. With no annotations, this adequately conveys safety profile, though it could detail output structure more.

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 sentences plus parameter note. Every sentence is purposeful and front-loaded with key information. No redundancy.

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?

Describes purpose, usage, and parameter well. With an output schema present, the description is sufficient for selection and basic invocation. Minor gap: no explicit mention of error handling or output fields, but context signals indicate output schema may cover this.

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 has 0% coverage for 'summary', but description adds 'optional human description of the intended change', clarifying its purpose beyond the schema's title and default. This adds value.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('evaluate') and resource ('deploy gate') with specific outcome ('returns whether a proposed change would pass policy, and which checks gate it'). It distinguishes from sibling 'request_deploy' by emphasizing read-only evaluation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells when to use: 'reason before calling request_deploy'. Also implies not to use when deploying directly. The summary parameter's optionality is explained.

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