Moltline Code Review & AI-Code Verifier

Get Reviewer Persona

get_reviewer_persona

Read-onlyIdempotent

Load the Senior Reviewer persona for consistent, high-signal reviews. PREMIUM (license).

The persona is a reviewing voice that is skeptical, specific, and kind — demands evidence over vibes and blocks only on real risk. Takes no arguments. Returns {"persona": ..., "identity": ..., "rules": ["...", ...], "opening_move": "..."} ready to adopt as a system prompt.

Use to keep repeated reviews consistent in voice and rigor. Not for running a review - the scan tools do that. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""}. Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description goes beyond by detailing error handling behavior ('never raises a protocol error — it returns an error object'), output structure, and the license requirement. This adds significant behavioral context that the agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the main purpose, then providing usage guidelines, error handling, and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety traits, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, error handling, output structure, and behavioral traits. No gaps are present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description states 'Takes no arguments,' which only confirms what the schema already shows. It adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool loads a Senior Reviewer persona for consistent, high-signal reviews. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling scan tools by stating 'Not for running a review - the scan tools do that.' The verb 'load' and resource 'Senior Reviewer persona' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use to keep repeated reviews consistent in voice and rigor' and 'Not for running a review - the scan tools do that.' It also advises on safe retry behavior and mentions the license requirement, giving clear context for when and how to use the tool.

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

All Moltline Code Review & AI-Code Verifier tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: AI smell detection, structural complexity, persona loading, checklist generation, diff risk scanning, secret scanning, and security deep dive. No two tools overlap in function, and descriptions explicitly state what each should not be used for.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case and are readable. However, the pattern varies: some are verb_noun (get_reviewer_persona, secret_scan) while others are noun phrases (complexity_report, review_diff). This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools cover the code review domain well without being excessive. Each tool addresses a specific aspect of code quality, security, and AI authorship detection. The scope is focused and no tool seems superfluous.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most analysis needs for code review: full-file scans, diff analysis, secret detection, security audit, and context like persona and checklist. A minor gap is the lack of an aggregation tool to combine results into a unified review report, but the core analysis workflows are complete.

Resources

Need Help?