Skip to main content
Glama

set_ui_review_scenario_cap

Set this web_app project's ui-review scenario budget, or reset it.

``scenario_cap`` is an integer from 6 through 32, or ``null`` to reset to
the platform default of 12. The screenshot cap derives from it and moves
with it, so the two can never starve each other.

Raising is always allowed, including from a completely full manifest.
LOWERING is refused when the default branch already declares more scenarios
or screenshots than the smaller budget allows, and is also refused when that
manifest cannot be read — both caps are enforced when keelen pushes and not
in your CI, so an over-cap manifest fails every push while CI stays green.

On a project with the retained evidence catalog (the response carries
``evidence_lifecycle: true``) the same parameter is a CAPTURE-RUN setting:
it limits how many scenarios and screenshots one capture run holds, a pull
request that needs more is split into capture batches, and the catalog
keeps every scenario whatever the value. The response then also reports
``catalog`` (the retained counts) separately from ``run_limits``, and a
lower is not refused for catalog size once the catalog is migrated.

Read ``project_status.ui_review`` first to see the live occupancy. Repeated
calls with the same value change nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
scenario_capNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only give a generic safety profile (readOnly false, destructive false, openWorld false), and the description goes well beyond it: it explains refusal semantics, the coupling of screenshot cap to scenario cap, and the mode switch on the retained-evidence catalog (capture-run cap vs catalog sizing, with catalog and run_limits reported separately). The only friction is 'repeated calls with the same value change nothing', which sits in tension with idempotentHint=false; read as a conservative default hint rather than a misstatement, the disclosure is still unusually rich.

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?

Purpose and parameter range are front-loaded, and the paragraphs are ordered purpose → parameter → refusal rules → mode caveat. It is longer than necessary for a 2-parameter tool, and the stray double-backtick line endings plus the unexplained 'keelen pushes' reference add noise that a sentence or two of trimming would remove.

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 an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs before calling: prerequisite read, valid range, refusal conditions, mode-dependent semantics, and a pointer to the response fields (evidence_lifecycle, catalog, run_limits) it should interpret. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema.

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 0% (no per-parameter descriptions), so the description has to carry the load and does: scenario_cap is an integer 6–32 or null for the default of 12, it derives the screenshot cap, and its meaning changes on evidence_lifecycle projects. project_id is never described in either place, which is the only gap.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: setting (or resetting) this web_app project's ui-review scenario budget. Nothing in the sibling list covers the same resource, so an agent can route to it unambiguously from the purpose alone.

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?

It states the prerequisite ('Read project_status.ui_review first to see the live occupancy'), the reset condition ('null to reset to the platform default of 12'), when raising is allowed, and the exact conditions under which lowering is refused (over-cap default branch, or unreadable manifest). That is explicit when-to-use and when-not guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.