rostra

review_decision_change

Compare a Git change against recorded workspace decisions to identify compliance issues. Set fail_on to enforce quality gates by flagging warnings or errors during review.

Instructions

Review a Git change against workspace decisions

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "working_directory": "<working_directory>",
      "base_ref": "<base_ref>",
      "head_ref": "<head_ref>"
    },
    "name": "review_decision_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`fail_on`	No	warning
`base_ref`	Yes
`head_ref`	Yes
`working_directory`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0-beta.2Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Review' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not say whether it modifies anything, what it requires (e.g., committed refs), how it handles failures, or any side effects.

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?

The single sentence is tight, free of filler, and front-loads the core action. It is slightly too terse for the tool's complexity, but as a concise statement of purpose it is effective.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given four parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves out critical context such as fail_on semantics, what the review output represents, and any preconditions. An agent would need to inspect the schema and output schema to safely invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only adds the 'Git change' and 'workspace decisions' framing, which hints at base_ref/head_ref and working_directory. It does not clarify the meaning of fail_on or the expected format/order of the refs.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Review') and identifies the resource ('a Git change') and comparison target ('workspace decisions'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling deliberation and decision-query tools. It doesn't explicitly contrast with query_decisions or list_stale_decisions, but the Git-change angle makes the purpose clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage signal is the implied scenario of having a Git change, but no sibling comparisons are provided.

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

Deploy Server