Skip to main content
Glama
Hardik-369

Change Risk Assessor MCP Server

by Hardik-369

Server Configuration

Describes the environment variables required to run the server.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Instructions

Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.

This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.

Capabilities

Features and capabilities supported by this server

Protocol revision2025-11-25

CapabilityDetails
tools
{}

Tools

Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions

NameDescription
assess_change_riskA

Classify code change risk. Return JSON only.

CLASSIFY (single-pass, no explanation):

  • HIGH: data deletion, auth changes, schema mutations, infra changes, breaking contracts

  • MEDIUM: behavior changes, config updates, unclear test coverage

  • LOW: comments, formatting, renames, tests only, pure refactors

OUTPUT (strict limits): { "risk_level": "low|medium|high", "risk_types": ["data_loss","auth","perf","breaking_change","infra","unknown"], "confidence": 0.0-1.0, "reasoning": "max 8 words, fragments only, no sentences", "agent_advice": "max 10 words, imperative only" }

REASONING examples:

  • "auth logic changed, rollback unclear"

  • "schema mutation, irreversible"

  • "refactor only, no behavior delta"

  • "config change, no tests"

ADVICE examples:

  • "run full test suite before deploy"

  • "verify rollback plan exists"

  • "standard review, check build"

FORBIDDEN in reasoning/advice:

  • describing files or code

  • repeating diff content

  • full sentences

  • context repetition

  • explanations

Classify immediately. Be conservative.

Prompts

Interactive templates invoked by user choice

NameDescription

No prompts

Resources

Contextual data attached and managed by the client

NameDescription

No resources

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

Only a single tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly stated and self-contained.

Naming Consistency5/5

The one tool name 'assess_change_risk' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, consistent with conventional naming. With a single tool, there are no inconsistencies to evaluate.

Tool Count2/5

The server has only one tool, which feels too few for a server dedicated to change risk assessment. While the tool is not trivial, the lack of any complementary operations makes the tool surface overly thin.

Completeness4/5

The single tool provides comprehensive output for the core assessment task, including risk level, types, confidence, reasoning, and advice. However, there are no supporting tools for related tasks (e.g., batch assessment, historical tracking), which is a minor gap given the narrow scope.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues