Change Risk Assessor MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
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
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| assess_change_riskA | Classify code change risk. Return JSON only. CLASSIFY (single-pass, no explanation):
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:
ADVICE examples:
FORBIDDEN in reasoning/advice:
Classify immediately. Be conservative. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
Only a single tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly stated and self-contained.
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.
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.
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.