Skip to main content
Glama

evaluate_code

Get a comprehensive code evaluation across 45 judges using automated pattern detection and deep contextual analysis, delivering a combined verdict with scores, findings, and guidance to improve code quality.

Instructions

Submit code to the full Judges Panel for evaluation. Handles ALL code types including application code, infrastructure-as-code (Bicep, Terraform, ARM, CloudFormation), and configuration files. All 45 judges will independently review the code using both automated pattern detection and deep contextual analysis criteria. Returns a combined verdict with scores, findings, and expert review guidance for thorough evaluation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe source code to evaluate. Include the full file content for best results.
configNoOptional inline configuration (same format as .judgesrc)
contextNoOptional additional context about the code — e.g., what the code does, which framework it uses, or the deployment target.
languageYesThe programming language of the code (e.g., 'typescript', 'python', 'javascript', 'csharp', 'java').
relatedFilesNoRelated files that provide cross-file context for deeper analysis (imports, shared types, call sites)
minConfidenceNoMinimum finding confidence to include (0-1, default: 0)
includeAstFindingsNoInclude AST/code-structure findings (default: true)
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that 45 judges independently review with automated and deep contextual analysis, and returns a combined verdict. However, it does not disclose potential costs, execution time, or side effects, which would be valuable for such a resource-heavy operation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to digest.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 2 required, nested config, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's input, process, and output adequately. It mentions the verdict includes scores, findings, and guidance, but could be more explicit about the output structure. Overall, it provides enough context for the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides, such as listing code types but not explaining the config object or relatedFiles in more depth.

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 clearly states the verb ('Submit code to the full Judges Panel for evaluation') and specifies the resource (code). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'full Judges Panel' and 'ALL code types', contrasting with tools like evaluate_code_single_judge or evaluate_diff.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for full panel evaluation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as evaluate_code_single_judge or evaluate_code_streaming. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/KevinRabun/judges'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server