Skip to main content
Glama
BASHBOP

Solumbe

by BASHBOP
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Review Verdict

review_verdict
Read-only

Run the full review pipeline in one call: combine change impact, review context, and merge gate into a unified verdict with a confidence score. Use it to judge a change end to end.

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.

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.
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.
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. 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"
+}
  2. 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."
  3. 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."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: it composes three sub-tools, produces a derived confidence score, and conditionally populates impactSummary.companions when .solumberc.json lists companions and a request is supplied. It does not state cost/latency or whether all three stages always run, but the composite behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before usage routing. Efficient overall, though the companions sentence is detail-heavy for a summary slot and could be trimmed without loss.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no required params, the description covers purpose, routing, and the shape of the result (verdict, confidence, impactSummary.companions). The main residual gap is not describing the verdict's structure or failure modes when sub-stages fail, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters, including pr, head, policy, and receipt semantics. The description adds only limited extra meaning (the request param's role in driving companion file ownership), so the 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 composite action (run change_impact + review_context + review_gate) and names its output (unified verdict with derived confidence score). Clearly differentiates itself from review_context and review_gate by naming both siblings and their narrower scopes.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when you want the complete picture of a change in a single call') and names both alternatives with their conditions: review_context for diff metadata only, review_gate for the gate verdict alone. Full when/when-not coverage.

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