Check gate status and incomplete dependencies for a node, reporting cycles and unresolved references as blockers while hiding restricted prerequisites.
Report gates and incomplete dependencies, conservatively hiding restricted prerequisites.
Cycles and unresolved references are blockers. No result grants human approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that restricted prerequisites are conservatively hidden, that cycles and unresolved references are blockers, and that no result grants human approval, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or describe permissions, side effects, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The text is short and front-loads the core action, with no filler. However, the phrasing is dense and somewhat cryptic, and the second sentence's caveat could be clearer.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to be fairly complete. It covers some behavioral caveats but omits what the required node_id means, what a 'gate' is, what the report contains, and whether the operation is read-only, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, node_id, has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. The description therefore does not compensate for the missing schema semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says it reports gates and incomplete dependencies, which gives a verb and a domain resource, but 'gates' and 'restricted prerequisites' are not explained, so the purpose remains somewhat vague. It also does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as run_check or open_items.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to call gate_check versus alternatives like open_items or run_check. It states that cycles and unresolved references are blockers and that no result grants human approval, but these are interpretation caveats rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.