review-gate-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| extract_with_gateA | Extract fields from a document. High-confidence values return immediately; uncertain values are held in a human-review queue instead of guessed. Fields: invoice_number, total_amount, date, email, vendor_name. |
| review_queueA | List extraction items currently waiting for a human decision. |
| resolve_reviewB | A human supplies the correct value for a held item, closing the loop. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: extraction, resolving held items, and listing the queue. No overlap or ambiguity between the three.
All tool names use snake_case and follow a verb-focused pattern (extract_with_gate, resolve_review, review_queue). The 'with_gate' modifier is slightly unconventional but consistent within the set.
Three tools is appropriate for the narrow domain of document extraction with human review. The count feels minimal but sufficient for the core workflow.
The toolset covers the primary extraction workflow (extract, review queue, resolve). Minor gaps like skipping or rejecting items are absent but not critical for the stated purpose.