Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Solumbe

Solumbe

by BASHBOP
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Review Verdict

review_verdict
Read-only

Run the complete change review pipeline in one call to combine impact analysis, review context, and gate checks into a unified verdict with a derived 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. When the repository's .solumberc.json lists companions and a request is given, impactSummary.companions names the top few files each companion repository would own for that request. 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.

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": "review_verdict"
  }
}

Input 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.
headNoReview exactly base..head: impact, gate and review context all read the head commit's changes, so uncommitted and untracked files play no part. Ignored in GitHub PR mode.
pathNoRepository path. Defaults to current working directory.
intentNoDeclared intent from change_impact declare (record, JSON, or path): fails the gate when a changed file was never declared.
policyNoPolicy profile: standard, company, or high-risk. Omitted, the repository's .solumberc.json or user config decides, else standard.
receiptNoConvergence receipt: inputs hash, JSON object, or path.
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 changedv4.10.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / intent / description
      Previous value: -"Optional declared intent (from change_impact with declare: the record, its JSON, or a path to it). Adds a Scope contract check that fails when a changed file was never declared, implied by a declared file, or named in an amendment."New value: +"Declared intent from change_impact declare (record, JSON, or path): fails the gate when a changed file was never declared."
    • changedInput schema / properties / receipt / description
      Previous value: -"Optional 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."New value: +"Convergence receipt: inputs hash, JSON object, or path."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv4.7.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / intent
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional declared intent (from change_impact with declare: the record, its JSON, or a path to it). Adds a Scope contract check that fails when a changed file was never declared, implied by a declared file, or named in an amendment."
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv4.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / head
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Review exactly base..head: impact, gate and review context all read the head commit's changes, so uncommitted and untracked files play no part. Ignored in GitHub PR mode.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. 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."
  5. 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."
  6. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing the composition (three sub-tools run in one shot), the derived confidence score, and the conditional behavior where impactSummary.companions is populated only when .solumberc.json lists companions and a request is supplied. It does not spell out cost/latency of running three pipelines at once or what the gate outcome looks like, so not 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the composition and return value, then conditions, then sibling routing — a sensible order. Slight redundancy between 'Run the full review pipeline in one shot' and 'Use review_verdict when you want the complete picture ... in a single call', which repeats the same point.

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?

An 11-parameter, all-optional tool with no output schema needs coverage of the input space and the return shape; the description covers the unified verdict plus one notable return field, and the schema covers the rest. The procedural meaning of the receipt/intent/minConvergence trio is left to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves some ambiguity about ordering.

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%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters including defaults and enum-ish values like policy and governance. The description adds meaning only for the `request` parameter, tying it to companion file ownership, which is a genuine but small increment. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource — running the full review pipeline as a composition of change_impact, review_context and review_gate — and names the return artifact (unified verdict with derived confidence score). Explicitly contrasts itself with review_context and review_gate, so an agent can pick the right tool without reading 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 a positive selection rule ('when you want the complete picture of a change in a single call') and names two alternatives with their narrower scopes ('diff metadata only (no verdict)', 'gate verdict alone'). No inference required.

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