Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Krv-Labs

topos-mcp

by Krv-Labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

topos_pr_recap

Read-onlyIdempotent

Summarize a pull request or commit range: check gate readiness, list blocking findings, and flag files needing attention. Returns a summary or the full v3 recap document.

Instructions

Structural PR or commit-range recap: gate readiness, blocking findings, files needing attention. Summary by default; detail: "full" for topos.pr_recap.v3.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prNoPull request number (mutually exclusive with `base`/`head`).
baseNoBase commit ref (default `HEAD`).
headNoHead commit ref or `:worktree` (default `:worktree` or `HEAD`).
pathsNoAbsolute or repo-relative paths of files whose full records to include.
detailNo`summary` (default) or `full` v3 document.
presetNoBuilt-in gate preset (`relaxed`, `recommended`, or `strict`).
strictNoFail readiness check on `warn` as well as `block`.
priorityNoPriority pillar or comma-separated ranking.
directoryNoRepository directory (default: MCP file root).
max_filesNoMax scored files by churn (default 0 = all).
no_couplingNoSkip coupling graph preparation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.15.0
    • addedInput schema / $defs
      Added value: +{
+  "Detail": {
+    "enum": [
+      "summary",
+      "full"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / detail
      Added value: +{
+  "$ref": "#/$defs/Detail",
+  "description": "`summary` (default) or `full` v3 document."
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / max_files / default
      Previous value: -40New value: +0
    • changedInput schema / properties / max_files / description
      Previous value: -"Max scored files by churn (default 40)."New value: +"Max scored files by churn (default 0 = all)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / paths
      Added value: +{
+  "default": [],
+  "description": "Absolute or repo-relative paths of files whose full records to include.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Addedv0.12.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default output mode and the versioned document emitted at full detail, but says nothing about cost, repo scoping (directory/paths), or result size behavior for a tool with 11 parameters.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the highest-value content (what the recap shows) is front-loaded before the verbosity default. Nothing is repeated from structured fields unnecessarily.

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 annotations carry the safety profile and the schema covers all parameters, the description is adequate: it names the three output sections and the full-detail document variant. It doesn't clarify how PR mode versus base/head mode is chosen or what scoping via directory/paths does, leaving some interpretation to the schema.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema, including the detail enum. The description's note about `detail: "full"` and `topos.pr_recap.v3` largely restates the schema's own wording, adding no format or interaction detail (e.g. how preset/strict/priority combine).

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Structural PR or commit-range recap') and enumerates what the recap contains: gate readiness, blocking findings, files needing attention. It doesn't distinguish itself from adjacent evaluate/assess siblings (topos_assess_changeset, topos_assess_worktree_change), so an agent can't fully rule those out from the description alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no named alternative among the many topos_assess_*/topos_evaluate_* siblings. The only routing hint is about output verbosity ('Summary by default; detail: full'), which is a parameter default rather than a tool-selection rule.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools