Skip to main content
Glama
jessepetersondev

consentgate-mcp

by jessepetersondev
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    check_action and request_approval have clearly distinct purposes: one performs a policy check, the other requests human approval. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern with snake_case: check_action and request_approval. The naming is consistent, descriptive, and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the set feels minimal but not unreasonable for a focused consent gate. It is borderline according to the calibration, as 1-2 tools tends to be thin, but here the two tools cover the core consent workflow.

    Completeness4/5

    The core consent flow is covered: check_action for policy evaluation and request_approval for handling 'ask' results or high-stakes actions. There is no dead end, though a gap exists for managing or viewing the consent policy itself, which is likely configured outside the tool surface.

  • Average 4.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior5/5

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

    The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it is non-blocking ('This call does not block.'), fail-closed ('FAIL CLOSED: if the result is anything other than "allow", do not perform the action.'), and clarifies that 'ask' is not approval. These add meaningful context that the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations do not provide.

    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 four sentences long, with each sentence earning its place: purpose, usage examples, return values, and the critical fail-closed instruction. It is front-loaded with the main action and is dense with useful guidance, with no fluff.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Even without an output schema, the description fully explains the return values and their meanings, the non-blocking nature, and the fail-closed behavior. It also handles the 'ask' edge case by directing to request_approval. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

    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?

    The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including examples and built-in categories. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning, such as that metadata is 'used by the owner's rules,' but does not significantly expand on what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool checks whether an action is permitted by the consent policy before performing it. It specifies the verb 'check' and the resource 'consent policy', and differentiates from the sibling tool request_approval by noting that 'ask' is not approval and should use request_approval.

    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 instructs when to use this tool: 'for any potentially sensitive, irreversible, or high-impact action' with concrete examples. It also provides an explicit alternative for the 'ask' result: 'use request_approval to get a human decision, or ask the user.' This is strong guidance.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    The description discloses extensive behavioral details: blocking behavior, exact return values, fail-closed timeout, unavailable conditions, and a strong safety caveat. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and adds critical context for an agent.

    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 a concise block of information with clear front-loading of the core purpose. Every sentence contributes critical usage or safety information, and the overal length is justified for a safety-critical tool.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no output schema, the description fully explains return values and edge cases. It covers success (allow), deny conditions, timeout, unavailable scenarios, and safety rules, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

    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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on overall tool behavior instead.

    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?

    The description states exactly what the tool does: request human approval and block until decision or timeout. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tool check_action by saying 'Use for high-stakes actions, or whenever check_action returned "ask"'.

    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?

    It explicitly says when to use this tool (high-stakes actions, check_action returned ask) and when to avoid treating results as permission. The description also mentions alternatives via the check_action reference, giving clear contextual guidance.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

consentgate-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

consentgate-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/jessepetersondev/consentgate-mcp'

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