Skip to main content
Glama

gate_action

Gate an action before execution by signing the decision and returning APPROVED, DENIED, or PENDING_APPROVAL. Supports AI agent governance and multi-party authorization.

Instructions

Pre-execution gate; signs the decision and returns APPROVED, DENIED, or PENDING_APPROVAL. After an APPROVED gate, call complete_action(gate_id, result) to close the bilateral receipt.

Args:
    action_type: The action to gate (e.g. "data:delete:users", "tool:execute:sql")
    agent_id: The agent requesting the action
    tool_name: Optional name of the tool being invoked
    arguments: Optional JSON string of the tool arguments
    risk_context: Optional description of why this action is risky

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
action_typeYes
agent_idYes
tool_nameNo
argumentsNo
risk_contextNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (APPROVED, DENIED, PENDING_APPROVAL) and the need to complete the bilateral receipt, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or statefulness. More behavioral context is needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, front-loading the purpose, then listing parameters. The structure is clear and every sentence adds value. Minor improvement could be using a more structured format, but it is effective.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers return values and the follow-up step. However, it does not elaborate on handling DENIED or PENDING_APPROVAL outcomes, and assumes knowledge of 'bilateral receipt'. Overall sufficient but could be more complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully documents all five parameters with clear explanations and examples (e.g., action_type as 'data:delete:users'). This compensates entirely for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool is a pre-execution gate that signs decisions and returns approval outcomes. It distinguishes itself by mentioning the follow-up call to complete_action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_policy.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on calling complete_action after an APPROVED gate, but lacks when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives. The context of pre-execution gating is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jagmarques/asqav-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server