Skip to main content
Glama
jigyasudham

veto

by jigyasudham
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

veto_decisions

Record architectural decisions as machine-checkable constraints and check diffs or working trees for forbidden patterns, blocking or warning on violations.

Instructions

Decision-drift enforcement: records architectural decisions as machine-checkable constraints, then flags diffs that violate them. AI assistants forget decisions and re-litigate them sessions later — record "we use Postgres" with forbidden_patterns ["mongoose", "mongodb"] once, and veto_diff_review / veto_ci_gate automatically fail any future diff that adds them. Actions: add (rule + forbidden_patterns), list, check (a diff or the working tree), disable / enable (by id), decline (a constraint_invitation the user said no to). When a council verdict or ADR carries a constraint_invitation, pass its invitation_id to add or decline.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNodisable/enable: the constraint id.
whyNoadd: rationale, shown alongside violations.
diffNocheck: a unified diff to check. Omit to read uncommitted git changes from project_dir.
ruleNoadd: the decision in human terms, e.g. "We use Postgres — no Mongo".
actionYesWhat to do.
severityNoadd: 'block' (default — fails reviews/gates) or 'warn'.
file_scopeNoadd: optional glob limiting which files the constraint applies to, e.g. "src/**/*.ts". Default: all files.
project_dirNoScope the constraint / check to a project. Defaults to the active project; constraints saved without one apply everywhere.
invitation_idNoadd / decline: the constraint_invitation.invitation_id from a council verdict or ADR, so Veto records the user's answer.
include_inactiveNolist: include disabled constraints (default false).
forbidden_patternsNoadd: case-insensitive regexes (fallback: substring) that violate the decision when they appear in added lines, e.g. ["mongoose", "mongodb"]. Refused if longer than 200 characters or if a repeated group itself repeats, e.g. "(a+)+" — those can hang diff review.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "add",
-  "list",
-  "check",
-  "disable",
-  "enable"
-]New value: +[
+  "add",
+  "list",
+  "check",
+  "disable",
+  "enable",
+  "decline"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / forbidden_patterns / description
      Previous value: -"add: case-insensitive regexes (fallback: substring) that violate the decision when they appear in added lines, e.g. [\"mongoose\", \"mongodb\"]."New value: +"add: case-insensitive regexes (fallback: substring) that violate the decision when they appear in added lines, e.g. [\"mongoose\", \"mongodb\"]. Refused if longer than 200 characters or if a repeated group itself repeats, e.g. \"(a+)+\" — those can hang diff review."
    • addedInput schema / properties / invitation_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "add / decline: the constraint_invitation.invitation_id from a council verdict or ADR, so Veto records the user's answer.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv2.7.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: severity defaults to 'block' which fails reviews/gates, forbidden_patterns are case-insensitive regexes or substrings, and they are refused if longer than 200 characters or contain a dangerous repeated group. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover permissions or output behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core concept and then logically moves through actions and special cases. While somewhat dense, every sentence serves to explain purpose, usage, or behavior for a multi-action tool with 11 parameters.

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 complex multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the main actions and key behavioral traits (severity, pattern restrictions, invitation flow). It stops short of explaining what the 'list' or 'check' actions return, but the core invocation guidance is complete enough for an agent to use it 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 schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description largely restates action-to-parameter mappings (e.g., 'add (rule + forbidden_patterns)', 'disable / enable (by id)') that are already evident from the schema field descriptions, adding little new semantic 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?

The description states a specific purpose: 'records architectural decisions as machine-checkable constraints, then flags diffs that violate them.' It names the concrete downstream tools (veto_diff_review, veto_ci_gate) and lists the six supported actions, making it easy to distinguish from siblings.

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?

It explains the core use case (preventing re-litigation of decisions across sessions) and gives specific guidance for the check action ('Omit to read uncommitted git changes') and for handling constraint invitations ('pass its invitation_id to add or decline'). It does not explicitly name when to use this tool instead of alternatives like veto_drift_check.

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