Skip to main content
Glama

Verify a code change

verify_change
Idempotent

Have Veridu review a code change you just made, before you commit or open a pull request. Independent reviewers check the change against the files you send (for PHP, Veridu also traces callers and overrides within them), findings that cannot be grounded in the code are dropped, and only problems both reviewers confirm can block. You get an outcome (pass / review / block) and concrete findings with file, line, severity and evidence.

Send: diff = git diff --no-renames <base> of your change (include new files: git add -N first), and files = the FULL current content of every file the diff adds or modifies, keyed by repo-relative path. You may add up to a few closely related unchanged files (callers, interfaces) to files for context. Text files only; no renames, mode changes, symlinks, submodules or binaries. Limits: diff 256 KB / 60 files, files 512 KB total.

After fixing findings, call again with the new diff. Veridu links it to the previous check of the same files (last 24 hours) automatically; pass parent_change = an earlier change_id only to link a different one. Up to two follow-ups per change do not count as a new review. Sending exactly the same change again returns the earlier result. Every finding has a finding_id that stays the same across follow-ups while the problem persists. A follow-up also returns followup: which ids persist, which came back (reported earlier in the chain, skipped last time), which are new (possibly introduced by your fix), and which are no longer reported, with code_changed saying whether the flagged line changed. "No longer reported" is not proof of a fix. Low-severity findings can be left out of the list but are still counted in followup. An identical resend returns the earlier result as it was. Each other new change counts as one review on the signed-in Veridu account.

Results are advisory: Veridu sees only what you send, not the rest of the repository. If the review is still running after ~45 seconds you get a change_id and stage_label (what Veridu is doing now): tell the user that line, then call get_change with the change_id (do not call verify_change again for the same change).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
diffYesUnified git diff of the change (git diff --no-renames).
filesYesRepo-relative path → full current file content, for every added/modified file (+ optional related files).
intentNoOne or two sentences: what the change is meant to do.
repo_nameNoOptional label, e.g. owner/repo.
parent_changeNoOptional. Veridu links a follow-up to the previous check of the same files automatically; pass a change_id to link a different check, or "none" to start a fresh one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses review behavior, grounding rules, blocking conditions, size limits, follow-up linkage, billing impact, advisory scope, and async response handling. The described idempotent resend behavior is consistent with idempotentHint=true, and the account-usage language is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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 long but dense and front-loaded with purpose and required inputs. Each section covers operational details the agent needs, including limits, follow-up behavior, billing, and async handling, with no obvious filler.

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 complex review tool without an output schema, the description explains the return outcome, findings shape, follow-up fields, and async change_id/stage_label behavior. Together with annotations and the fully described schema, it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning for diff and files: exact git diff command, git add -N for new files, full current content requirements, optional related context files, and file-type limits. It also explains parent_change follow-up linking well, though it does not elaborate on intent or repo_name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: Veridu reviews a code change before commit or PR. It clearly distinguishes the synchronous review call from the asynchronous sibling get_change by telling the agent to call get_change rather than verify_change again.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance before committing or opening a PR, explains how to call again after fixes, and names the alternative get_change when review is still running. It also addresses parent_change usage and identical resends, leaving little to inference.

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.

Resources