UI Verify

Accept, deny, or ignore one story's change

review_diff

Record a review on a single diff result (get diffResultId from get_build/get_diff). 'accept' makes the candidate the new baseline for that story on its branch, so the next build is clean; 'deny' records the rejection without changing the baseline; 'ignore' excludes the story from the gate persistently (the snapshot keeps differing on future builds but no longer flags the check) — use it for an intentional, ongoing diff like an animation or a live timestamp. This is the same accept/deny/ignore as the dashboard, attributed to your project key. Use after you've inspected the diff (e.g. with render_diff_image) and decided intended vs. regression. accept and ignore are refused while the story has an unresolved review comment (read it with list_comments, address it, resolve_comment the thread, then retry); deny is always allowed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`decision`	Yes	'accept' advances the baseline; 'deny' records a rejection; 'ignore' excludes the story from the gate.
`diffResultId`	Yes	The diff result id from get_build or get_diff.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`decision`	Yes
`diffResultId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "decision": {
+      "enum": [
+        "accepted",
+        "denied",
+        "ignored"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "diffResultId": {
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "diffResultId",
+    "decision"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description explains the full behavioral impact of each decision: accept advances the baseline and makes the next build clean; deny records rejection without changing baseline; ignore persistently excludes the story from the gate while the snapshot keeps differing. It also discloses the unresolved-comment refusal condition and project-key attribution, going well beyond the sparse 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: core action, per-decision effects, workflow context, and a critical refusal condition. It is front-loaded with the action and scoping, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a mutation tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the workflow, the meaning of each decision, the persistent behavior of ignore, the unresolved-comment constraint, and the source of the required ID. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining where diffResultId comes from ('from get_build/get_diff') and by giving the behavioral consequence of each decision enum value, which the schema only names.

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 opens with 'Record a review on a single diff result', a specific verb and resource, and the title narrows it to 'one story's change'. It clearly distinguishes this from build-level tools like accept_build by emphasizing the per-story, per-diff scope.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after you've inspected the diff (e.g. with render_diff_image) and decided intended vs. regression.' It also states when-not: accept and ignore are refused while an unresolved review comment exists, while deny is always allowed. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for the same decision, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All UI Verify tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?