Skip to main content
Glama
BrightbeamAI

@brightbeamai/chap-coordinator-mcp

Official
by BrightbeamAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

chap.review.request

chap.review.request

Request review of a task artefact by assigning it to one or more reviewers, enabling them to approve, reject, override, or abstain. Repeat with same artefact to add reviewers.

Instructions

Open a review on a task and address it to one or more reviewers. They then call chap.decide.approve, chap.decide.reject, chap.decide.override or chap.abstain.declare. Repeating the request with the same artefact adds reviewers to the open review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesOne or more reviewers, as a single URI string or an array of URI strings. Only a workspace member can go on to decide, so a review addressed elsewhere cannot be closed by its recipient.
fromYesParticipant URI, e.g. 'human:alice@example.org' or 'agent:bot@local'.
ruleNoHow many of the addressed reviewers must approve before the task completes. quorum:N is accepted for any N of 1 or more. The rule is fixed once the review is open: a later request naming a different one is refused with -32014. Omitting it on a later request leaves the rule alone, which is how reviewers are added to an open review.any_one_approves
task_idYesTask identifier returned by chap.task.create.
artefactYesThe draft being submitted for review. Pass a JSON object or array. A JSON-encoded string is parsed back to the structured value before dispatch, so patches in chap.decide.override apply against a real object. Re-requesting with the same artefact widens the reviewer set; a different artefact on an open review is refused with -32014.
deadlineNoWhen the review is needed by, as an ISO 8601 timestamp. Recorded on the review; the coordinator does not act on it.
workspaceYesWorkspace identifier, e.g. 'wsp_techcorp_support'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.13

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the state-changing nature of the call ('Open a review') and the additive behavior of repeating the request with the same artefact. However, it does not mention failure modes, such as refusing a changed rule or a different artefact on an open review, nor what the call returns.

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?

The description is three short sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the downstream reviewer workflow, and the repeat-with-same-artefact behavior. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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?

The tool has seven parameters and no output schema, but the schema covers all parameters completely. The description supplies the high-level workflow, the lifecycle expectation, and the idempotent reviewer-addition behavior. The main missing piece is a statement about the return value or error semantics, but this is not critical for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a little context about the artefact and reviewer relationship, but most parameter-specific meaning is already fully documented in the input schema, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Open a review on a task and address it to one or more reviewers.' It also separates this tool from the downstream decision tools by naming them explicitly, so an agent can distinguish opening a review from approving, rejecting, overriding, or abstaining.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context about when to use the tool: to open a review and assign reviewers, with the expectation that reviewers then use chap.decide.* or chap.abstain.declare. It also gives the useful repeat-request guidance for adding reviewers. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to similar open/deliberate tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Install Server

Other Tools