VibeRaven

Explain a VibeRaven finding

explain_finding

Read-onlyIdempotent

explain_finding({"gap_id":"rls_disabled"}) Use after a check returns a finding id, such as rls_disabled or env_var_drift, to understand and fix that VibeRaven 1.8.0 finding. Returns detection scope, impact, fix guidance and coverage limits quoted from viberaven.dev with source links. Unknown ids return found: false and known ids. For a raw error without a finding id, use search_guides. Limits: explains published rules only; does not read your repo, database or Vercel project.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "gap_id": "<gap_id>"
    },
    "name": "explain_finding"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gap_id`	Yes	The finding id as printed by VibeRaven, for example rls_disabled.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`found`	Yes
`gap_id`	No
`detects`	No
`named_on`	No
`nextStep`	No
`known_ids`	No
`how_to_fix`	No
`does_not_check`	No
`why_it_matters`	No
`viberaven_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 5, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / nextStep / properties / codingAgentTask
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 31, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / nextStep

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "label": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "label",
+    "url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world lookup, and the description goes further by describing the response contents (detection scope, impact, fix guidance, coverage limits with source links), the error path ('Unknown ids return found: false and known ids'), and the hard limit that it explains published rules only and touches no live systems.

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 invocation example is front-loaded and immediately concrete, and the limits line is a useful closing constraint. The embedded JSON call partly duplicates the schema, so it is slightly redundant, but no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: trigger condition, example inputs, failure behavior, sourcing of content, and scope limits. Nothing material is left to guesswork.

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% and the schema already describes gap_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: it frames the value as a finding id printed by a check, lists example ids, and documents the unknown-id outcome, which is not expressible in the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('VibeRaven 1.8.0 finding'), and anchors it with concrete finding ids such as rls_disabled and env_var_drift. It also states what it is not (it does not read repos, databases or Vercel projects), which separates it from the check_* siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('Use after a check returns a finding id') and names the alternative for the adjacent case ('For a raw error without a finding id, use search_guides'). The routing decision is fully spelled out rather than inferred.

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

All VibeRaven tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.