titmas-agent-action-gate

by joy7758

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct phase of the action gate workflow: submitting a request, attaching evidence, verifying evidence, evaluating the gate, reading state, and recording human approval. There is no overlap in purpose or ambiguity about which tool to use.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear, domain-specific verbs (submit, attach, verify, evaluate, get, record). The naming is uniform, predictable, and free of mixed styles or vague terms.
Tool Count5/5
With six tools, the server is well-scoped for an action gate domain. Each tool maps to a core step in the process, avoiding both bloat and a thin surface.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the complete action gate lifecycle: request intake, evidence attachment and verification, gate evaluation, human approval input, and state inspection. Given the append-only and integrity-focused design, there are no obvious missing operations.
Average 3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 43 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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

Behavior2/5
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 states the tool invokes a pinned version and retains a structured receipt, which gives some behavioral context (reproducibility, output retention), but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified. It is short enough to be front-loaded, yet it leaves out critical semantics, so it is not efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the description lacks context about the tool's role in the evidence workflow, when to call it, or what the receipt contains. Combined with zero parameter descriptions, the overall context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explanation of what request_id or caller_token represent. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent without sufficient information to populate them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says "Invoke pinned agent-evidence 0.6.0" which gives a verb and resource, but it does not explicitly state that the tool verifies evidence. The purpose is implied by the tool name, not clearly described. It also does not distinguish from sibling tools like attach_evidence or evaluate_action_gate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to use alternatives. The description provides no context signal such as prerequisites, workflow steps, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool validates and appends and does not grant authority, but it omits details about the required caller_token, what validation entails, side effects, or failure behavior. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. The caveat 'grants no authority' is a meaningful behavioral note. It is appropriately sized, though thin on content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested action_request object, required caller_token, and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the expected format of a normalized action request, the token's origin or purpose, or the tool's role in the broader workflow with siblings like evaluate_action_gate or record_human_approval.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter information. It does not explain the structure of 'action_request' or the purpose of 'caller_token', leaving the agent to guess from parameter names alone. The tool has only two parameters, so the description should have easily compensated, but it doesn't.
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's function with a specific verb ('Validate and append') and resource ('one normalized action request'), and adds a distinguishing behavioral note ('grants no authority'). It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on evidence and approval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus siblings. The 'grants no authority' hint implies it's not for authority-granting, but there is no clear 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the computation is deterministic and based on retained versioned inputs, giving some insight into its state-dependency. However, it does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or data requirements beyond those inputs, and with no annotations, this is insufficient.
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 single compact sentence that conveys the core function without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action verb and is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema exists, the description lacks workflow context (e.g., prerequisite steps) and does not explain terminology like 'retained versioned inputs' or how the parameters map to these inputs. This makes it incomplete for a tool in a multi-step action gate workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description makes no reference to request_id or caller_token, and since the schema has 0% coverage, the agent must rely on the parameter names alone. This leaves interpretation to guesswork.
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 uses a specific verb 'Compute' and specifies the output values 'ALLOW, BLOCK, or REQUIRE_APPROVAL', which distinguishes it from siblings like submit_action_request or get_action_state. However, it does not clarify what 'retained versioned inputs' refers to, limiting full precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No use-case context is provided; there is no mention of when this should be called relative to other tools, or any alternatives. The description only states what it computes, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool appends a signed, scoped record, but it does not explain auth requirements, side effects, or what the output contains. As a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 single, well-structured sentence that directly states the tool's action and object with zero wasted words. It front-loads the verb and keeps the purpose immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and five required parameters, the description is minimal. It lacks details about when to use this tool, the meaning of the parameters, any prerequisites, or what the output represents. The tool is a write operation, so more context is necessary for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the five parameters. Although the parameter names (request_id, approver_token, etc.) offer some hints, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's field names.
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 a specific verb ('Create and append') and a distinct resource ('scoped signed human approval, denial, or revocation input'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_action_request or evaluate_action_gate by focusing on recording human decisions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and description—it's for recording a human's approval/denial/revocation—but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings or any prerequisites. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses side-effect-free behavior ('performs no mutation') and the append-only data model, which adds meaningful context. However, it does not discuss auth requirements, error conditions, or scope of the state read.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence where every clause adds value: read operation, append-only state, integrity results, and no mutation. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool requires two mandatory parameters and has no annotations; the description covers purpose and safety but leaves parameter semantics and invocation prerequisites unexplained. Although an output schema exists, it does not compensate for missing parameter guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has two required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention request_id or caller_token at all, leaving their meaning and relationship to the tool's behavior entirely to guesswork.
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 uses specific verb 'Read' and names the resource 'append-only action state and integrity results', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling write/action tools like submit_action_request and record_human_approval. The no-mutation clause reinforces purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies read-only inspection ('performs no mutation') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling names give context, but the description itself offers no direct usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the attachment is immutable and that verification/authorization are not performed, which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects, error behavior, or the role of caller_token, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and adds key limitations, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks details about prerequisites, error handling, or workflow integration. The four required parameters are only partially explained, and with no annotations, the tool is not fully understandable for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides some meaning (evidence profile reference implies profile_path) but leaves request_id and caller_token entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('immutable in-scope evidence profile reference'), clearly stating the action. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting that it does not verify or authorize, contrasting with verify_evidence and evaluate_action_gate.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (to attach a reference without verification/authorization) and implicitly indicates when not to use it (if verification or authorization is needed). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like verify_evidence, so it falls short of a 5.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![titmas-agent-action-gate MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joy7758/titmas-agent-action-gate/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joy7758/titmas-agent-action-gate)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![titmas-agent-action-gate MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joy7758/titmas-agent-action-gate/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joy7758/titmas-agent-action-gate)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/joy7758/titmas-agent-action-gate'

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