UI Verify

Accept every changed story in a build

accept_build

Accept ALL changed stories in one build at once (resolved by commitSha/prNumber/buildId), advancing each story's per-branch baseline so the next build is clean. This is the bulk form of review_diff='accept' — use it when you've decided the whole build's changes are intended. It accepts every changed story, including stories that already have a prior denied review; failed stories are unaffected. Returns the build triage after accepting (first page of changed stories, each now showing decision='accepted'; page the rest with list_build_stories if changedNextCursor is set). Refused, with nothing accepted, while any changed story has an unresolved review comment: the error names those stories; read them with list_comments, address each note, resolve_comment its thread, then accept again.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`buildId`	No	Resolve this exact build id.
`prNumber`	No	Resolve the latest build for this PR number.
`commitSha`	No	Resolve the build for this git commit SHA.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`branch`	Yes
`counts`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`buildId`	Yes
`aiReview`	Yes
`comments`	Yes
`prNumber`	Yes
`commitSha`	Yes
`createdAt`	Yes
`gateStatus`	Yes
`failedStories`	Yes
`changedStories`	Yes
`failedNextCursor`	Yes
`autoAcceptChanges`	Yes
`changedNextCursor`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 25, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / changedStories / items / properties / comments

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "total": {
+      "$ref": "#/properties/comments/properties/total"
+    },
+    "unresolved": {
+      "$ref": "#/properties/comments/properties/unresolved"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total",
+    "unresolved"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / changedStories / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "diffResultId",
-  "storyId",
-  "title",
-  "name",
-  "viewport",
-  "browser",
-  "changedPct",
-  "decision",
-  "isNew",
-  "unstable",
-  "aiVerdict",
-  "aiClassification",
-  "aiIntroducedBy",
-  "aiConfidence",
-  "aiSummary",
-  "aiFlagReason"
-]New value: +[
+  "diffResultId",
+  "storyId",
+  "title",
+  "name",
+  "viewport",
+  "browser",
+  "changedPct",
+  "decision",
+  "isNew",
+  "unstable",
+  "aiVerdict",
+  "aiClassification",
+  "aiIntroducedBy",
+  "aiConfidence",
+  "aiSummary",
+  "aiFlagReason",
+  "comments"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 16, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / comments

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "total": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "unresolved": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total",
+    "unresolved"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "buildId",
-  "commitSha",
-  "branch",
-  "prNumber",
-  "status",
-  "gateStatus",
-  "autoAcceptChanges",
-  "createdAt",
-  "counts",
-  "aiReview",
-  "changedStories",
-  "changedNextCursor",
-  "failedStories",
-  "failedNextCursor"
-]New value: +[
+  "buildId",
+  "commitSha",
+  "branch",
+  "prNumber",
+  "status",
+  "gateStatus",
+  "autoAcceptChanges",
+  "createdAt",
+  "counts",
+  "comments",
+  "aiReview",
+  "changedStories",
+  "changedNextCursor",
+  "failedStories",
+  "failedNextCursor"
+]

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses key side effects: advancing each story's per-branch baseline, accepting stories with prior denied reviews, leaving failed stories unaffected, atomic refusal when unresolved comments exist, and the paginated return shape via changedNextCursor. This adds substantial behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: core action, side effect, sibling relationship, usage condition, exceptional cases, return behavior, and remediation workflow. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, though the single dense paragraph could be lightly restructured to separate normal behavior from the refusal-recovery path.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, annotations cover the mutation profile, and the description covers side effects, exceptions, pagination, and recovery steps, this is nearly complete. The one gap: with zero required parameters, the description never states that exactly one of commitSha/prNumber/buildId should be provided or what happens if multiple are passed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter ('Resolve this exact build id', 'Resolve the latest build for this PR number', 'Resolve the build for this git commit SHA'). The description only re-lists them as alternative resolvers without adding precedence or exclusivity rules, so the schema carries the weight and baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('accept') and resource ('ALL changed stories in one build'), and immediately names the sibling it relates to ('bulk form of review_diff="accept"'), so an agent can distinguish it from review_diff, list_build_stories, and get_pr_changeset without opening any 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?

Explicitly tells when to use it ('use it when you've decided the whole build's changes are intended') and names the alternative (review_diff='accept'), implying the per-story path for the opposite case. It also gives a concrete error-recovery workflow (list_comments → resolve_comment → accept again) for the refusal condition.

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.