Skip to main content
Glama
BASHBOP

Solumbe

by BASHBOP
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Review Verdict

review_verdict
Read-only

Run the complete code review pipeline in one call: assess change impact, gather review context, apply merge gate, and return a unified verdict with confidence score.

Instructions

Run the full review pipeline in one shot: change_impact plus review_context plus review_gate, returning a unified verdict with a derived confidence score. Use review_verdict when you want the complete picture of a change in a single call. Use review_context instead for diff metadata only (no verdict), or review_gate for the gate verdict alone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prNoPR selector (number, URL, or branch). Set, gates that GitHub PR, as review_gate does; omitted or blank, runs the local gate.
baseNoBase ref for local diff. Defaults to origin/main, then HEAD.
pathNoRepository path. Defaults to current working directory.
policyNoPolicy profile: standard, company, or high-risk. Omitted, the repository's .solumberc.json or user config decides, else standard.
receiptNoOptional convergence inputs hash, JSON object, or path to a JSON receipt artifact. Exact-subject v2 receipts require the full hash; legacy v1 display IDs remain accepted.
requestNoPlain-English change request for impact scoring.
impactTopNoNumber of impact files. Defaults to 8.
governanceNoGovernance: team or solo. Omitted, the repository's .solumberc.json or user config decides, else team.
minConvergenceNoOptional minimum convergence score (0–100) enforced by the merge gate.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / governance / description
      Previous value: -"Governance: team or solo. Omitted, the repository's .otitorc.json or user config decides, else team."New value: +"Governance: team or solo. Omitted, the repository's .solumberc.json or user config decides, else team."
    • changedInput schema / properties / policy / description
      Previous value: -"Policy profile: standard, company, or high-risk. Omitted, the repository's .otitorc.json or user config decides, else standard."New value: +"Policy profile: standard, company, or high-risk. Omitted, the repository's .solumberc.json or user config decides, else standard."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / governance / description
      Previous value: -"Governance: team (default) or solo."New value: +"Governance: team or solo. Omitted, the repository's .otitorc.json or user config decides, else team."
    • changedInput schema / properties / policy / description
      Previous value: -"Policy profile: standard (default), company, or high-risk."New value: +"Policy profile: standard, company, or high-risk. Omitted, the repository's .otitorc.json or user config decides, else standard."
    • changedInput schema / properties / pr / description
      Previous value: -"Optional PR selector. When set, pass-pr runs against GitHub instead of local mode."New value: +"PR selector (number, URL, or branch). Set, gates that GitHub PR, as review_gate does; omitted or blank, runs the local gate."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: this call composes three other tools and synthesizes a confidence score, which explains latency and result shape. It doesn't discuss permissions, rate limits, or how partial failures in the composed stages are surfaced, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: capability first, then routing guidance. Every clause earns its place, with no restatement of the name or padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description states what comes back (a unified verdict plus a derived confidence score), which is the essential return-value information for a read-only aggregator. It does not sketch the verdict's internal structure or how the composed stages' findings are merged, leaving a small gap.

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% and every parameter carries a rich inline description, including defaults and PR-vs-local gating behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already documented, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and composite resource: it runs the full review pipeline (change_impact plus review_context plus review_gate) and returns a unified verdict with a derived confidence score. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools it composes, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you want the complete picture of a change in a single call') and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: review_context for diff metadata only, review_gate for the gate verdict alone. Nothing is left to inference.

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