GIA MCP Server

board_approve_gate

Idempotent

Approve a mandatory governance gate to transition a pending deliberation session to completion, making the full output available.

Instructions

Approve a MANDATORY governance gate on a deliberation session. When a board session reaches "pending-gate" status, a human must approve the output before it finalizes. This is the human-in-the-loop enforcement mechanism. After approval, the session transitions to "complete" and the full deliberation output becomes available via board_get_session.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "gate_id": "<gate_id>",
      "approved_by": "<approved_by>"
    },
    "name": "board_approve_gate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gate_id`	Yes	Gate ID from the session status (e.g. "gate-rb-xxx-yyy")
`approved_by`	Yes	Identity of the human approver (e.g. "william.storey")
`rationale`	No	Reason for approval — recorded in the forensic audit chain

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.3.6May 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. Description adds that after approval, the session transitions to 'complete' and output becomes available. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each essential. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by context, mechanism, and outcome. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Tool is simple with 3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects. Description covers purpose, trigger condition, post-approval state, and parameter context. Fully adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names. Description adds minimal extra context, e.g., 'recorded in the forensic audit chain' for rationale. Baseline of 3 applies as schema already explains well.

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 clearly states the tool approves a mandatory governance gate on a deliberation session. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'MANDATORY' and referencing the human-in-the-loop enforcement mechanism.

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?

Description explains when to use: when a board session reaches 'pending-gate' status. It implies that without approval, the session cannot complete. No explicit alternative provided, but the context is clear.

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

Deploy Server