Rams

Rams design review

review_files

Full Rams design review of UI code (React, Vue, Svelte, HTML, CSS, SwiftUI). Returns a 0-100 score (criticals cap it: one caps at 59, two at 49, three or more at 39), issues with severity, category, file:line, and concrete fixes as patches. Call it once at the end: before a commit, or when the user wants a score or a final check. Pass each file with its real path, or for pasted code a path that fits it (pasted/Card.tsx). Each call uses one review credit. Reviewing a few files needs no permission. Ask the user before a whole-codebase audit (dozens of files), since it spends their allowance. For quick feedback while you work, use quick_review.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`via`	No	Set to "rules" when this call is made because of a standing instruction in a rules file (e.g. CLAUDE.md). Omit when a person asked for the review.
`files`	Yes	The UI code, one entry per file (up to 20): the real path, or for pasted code a path that fits it (pasted/Card.tsx), and the full code
`context`	No	Short label for this review, e.g. the feature or branch name

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`score`	Yes	0-100; confirmed criticals cap it — one at 59, two at 49, three or more at 39
`issues`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`direction`	No	What the change is trying to be — judgment before findings
`visualPair`	No	One verified before/after of the top fix (image URLs), when one was rendered
`reviewsUsed`	Yes
`reviewsLimit`	Yes	null = unlimited (Team overage applies instead)
`detectedCounts`	Yes
`visualFindings`	No	Findings seen in a render of the code, each with a crop URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 14, 2026

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
```

addedOutput schema / properties / visualFindings

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Findings seen in a render of the code, each with a crop URL",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "properties": {},
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / visualPair

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "One verified before/after of the top fix (image URLs), when one was rendered",
+  "properties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 8, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / files / description

Previous value: -"UI files to review (up to 20)"New value: +"The UI code, one entry per file (up to 20): the real path, or for pasted code a path that fits it (pasted/Card.tsx), and the full code"

Changed1 schema field changedSep 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / via

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set to \"rules\" when this call is made because of a standing instruction in a rules file (e.g. CLAUDE.md). Omit when a person asked for the review.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedAug 1, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / score / description

Previous value: -"0-100; any confirmed critical caps it at 59"New value: +"0-100; confirmed criticals cap it — one at 59, two at 49, three or more at 39"

Changed1 schema field changedJul 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "detectedCounts": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "critical": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "moderate": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "serious": {
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "critical",
+        "serious",
+        "moderate"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "direction": {
+      "description": "What the change is trying to be — judgment before findings",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "issues": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "category": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "file": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "fix": {
+            "description": "The fix as prose/code",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "line": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "message": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "patch": {
+            "description": "RAMS-121: unified diff against the submitted file content, git-apply-able. Present only when the fix locates unambiguously.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "severity": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "severity",
+          "category",
+          "title",
+          "message",
+          "file",
+          "line"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "reviewsLimit": {
+      "description": "null = unlimited (Team overage applies instead)",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "reviewsUsed": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "description": "0-100; any confirmed critical caps it at 59",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "score",
+    "summary",
+    "detectedCounts",
+    "issues",
+    "reviewsUsed",
+    "reviewsLimit"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJul 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only mark it non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing the credit cost per call, the scoring model with its critical-cap thresholds, the shape of returned issues and fixes, and the allowance/permission model for large audits. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then output shape, then invocation timing, then cost/permission rules, then the sibling alternative. Every sentence carries operational information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the score and issue structure. Combined with the credit, permission, and path guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning on top by explaining that each file needs its real path or a plausible synthetic path for pasted code (pasted/Card.tsx), which clarifies the 'path' field's intent. It does not cover the 'via' parameter, which is left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full Rams design review of UI code') plus the supported frameworks, and explicitly contrasts with quick_review as the fast-feedback alternative. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit timing ('call it once at the end: before a commit, or when the user wants a score or a final check'), names the alternative for quick feedback, and states the permission boundary ('reviewing a few files needs no permission' vs. asking before a whole-codebase audit). When, when-not, and alternatives are all covered.

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

All Rams tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?