Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paa-guard mcp

paa-guard mcp

by kenhuangus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

paa_guard_status

Check whether the agent is stopped, which mandates are active, and how many approvals are pending before taking action.

Instructions

Read whether the agent is stopped, which mandates are active, and how many approvals are pending.

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": "paa_guard_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the content returned (stopped flag, active mandates, pending approval count) and implies a non-mutating read via "Read". It does not state whether the call is cheap/side-effect-free, whether it requires auth, or whether the counts are cached or authoritative.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the three returned facts are enumerated compactly. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return content — and it enumerates the three fields an agent needs. It does not clarify whether additional status fields exist or whether the values are snapshots, a minor omission for a zero-parameter read.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description spends no words on nonexistent inputs, which is correct.

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?

Specific verb ("Read") plus a concrete resource (guard status) with three enumerated return items: stopped state, active mandates, pending approval count. An agent can tell this is the introspection/read tool rather than a mutation tool. It stops short of naming how it differs from the sibling paa_guard_check, which by name looks like an overlapping check operation.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named. The presence of the sibling paa_guard_check makes the absence of routing guidance a real gap — the agent has to guess whether status or check is the right call before acting. Nothing in the text excludes any scenario.

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