Stateless code review. Sends ONLY the provided snippet to the model and returns findings (bugs, security, edge cases, fixes). No repository or local context is used. Paid per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The code snippet to review | |
| focus | No | Optional focus (e.g. security, performance, correctness) | |
| language | No | Optional language hint (e.g. javascript, python) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by disclosing cost behavior ('Paid per call') and operational scope ('Stateless', 'No repository or local context is used'). It also lists the types of findings returned. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four short sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the input boundary, the no-context caveat, and the cost implication. All critical information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema: it explains what is sent, what is returned, and what context is absent. A precise output format is not specified, but the listed finding categories give adequate guidance for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents code, focus, and language. The description reinforces that only the code parameter is sent to the model, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'code review' of 'the provided snippet'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like paid_repo_health by emphasizing that no repository or local context is used, and from paid_config_review by targeting code snippets rather than configs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear selection context: use this when you have only a snippet and want stateless review. 'No repository or local context is used' implies when full repo context is needed this tool is not appropriate, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.