Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
code-reviewer-mcp

code-reviewer-mcp

by ArthDh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_review_checklist

Retrieve a persona-specific code review checklist to guide manual reviews. Use it to apply configurable standards and consistent checks.

Instructions

Get the full code review checklist based on the persona.

Returns: A comprehensive checklist for manual code review.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_review_checklist"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at a persona dependency and a return value, but says nothing about where the persona comes from, permissions, or whether the checklist varies per invocation.

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?

Two short sentences with the Returns section clearly appended. Front-loaded and with no waste, though the Returns line is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present, return explanation is unnecessary, and there are no parameters to cover. However, the implicit dependency on a persona (presumably from get_persona) is left unexplained, which is the key missing context.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of a persona-driven result adds a small amount of meaning about what determines the output, but there are no parameters to document.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieving the code review checklist. The phrase 'based on the persona' distinguishes it from a static list, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like review_file or generate_review_report.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this precedes manual review and depends on a persona.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools