sentarion-mcp

govern

Checks each proposed action with a rule-based, zero-LLM gate before execution; denies anything not explicitly permitted, ensuring fail-closed safety.

Instructions

Ask the two-chamber gate (Humane + ArkHive) 'may I?' before acting. Rule-based, zero-LLM, fail-closed.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "govern"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`flags`	No
`rules`	No
`action`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Aug 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing that the tool is rule-based, zero-LLM, and fail-closed. This tells the agent the operation is deterministic and safe to rely on, though it stops short of explaining what the response looks like or what fail-closed yields in practice.

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 only two sentences and every word earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact behavioral qualifier, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 three parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently construct calls. It gives a strong conceptual model but omits parameter usage, return format, and what fail-closed means operationally.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention any parameter by name. The action and rules parameters are weakly inferable from 'before acting' and 'rule-based,' but the flags parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 the tool's purpose: ask the two-chamber gate for permission before acting. It names a specific resource (gate), a specific verb (ask), and the timing (before acting), and it distinguishes this from all siblings by framing it as a pre-action authorization check rather than an execution, estimation, or recall tool.

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 phrase 'before acting' provides a clear trigger condition for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of a pre-action gate is sufficiently distinct from the sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server