cross-review

Ask Peers

ask_peers

Submit a task and draft to selected AI peers for an API review round; evidence is persisted durably and transported automatically.

Instructions

Run a real API review round against selected peers. AI evidence supplied in evidence is persisted durably and transported automatically; no manual operator attachment is required. Runtime default uses real provider APIs; stubs run only when CROSS_REVIEW_STUB=1.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	Yes
`draft`	Yes
`peers`	No
`caller`	No		operator
`evidence`	No	Raw evidence from the authenticated AI caller. It is persisted automatically as durable, SHA-256-addressed caller_submitted_unverified material and transported to reviewers; no manual operator attachment is required. Do not call session_attach_evidence for this routine path.
`session_id`	No
`review_focus`	No	Optional provider-neutral review scope anchor. This is not Claude Code's /focus UI command; it is injected as a front-loaded Review Focus prompt block for every selected peer, including OUT OF SCOPE handling for unrelated findings.
`caller_status`	No		READY
`response_format`	No		json
`reasoning_effort_overrides`	No	Optional per-peer reasoning_effort overrides for this call. Keys are peer ids (codex\|claude\|gemini\|deepseek\|grok\|perplexity); missing keys fall back to global config. This is a shared scale: adapters normalize unsupported literals to the selected model's documented enum (`ultra` becomes max on GPT-5.6, Kimi K3 via Perplexity and DeepSeek, and xhigh on Grok 4.6; older GPT-5 families use their own ceilings).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedv4.4.13Aug 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / description

Previous value: -"Optional per-peer reasoning_effort overrides for this call. Keys are peer ids (codex|claude|gemini|deepseek|grok|perplexity); missing keys fall back to global config. This is a shared scale: adapters normalize unsupported literals to the selected model's documented enum (`ultra` becomes max on GPT-5.6 and high on Grok 4.5; older GPT-5 families use their own ceilings)."New value: +"Optional per-peer reasoning_effort overrides for this call. Keys are peer ids (codex|claude|gemini|deepseek|grok|perplexity); missing keys fall back to global config. This is a shared scale: adapters normalize unsupported literals to the selected model's documented enum (`ultra` becomes max on GPT-5.6, Kimi K3 via Perplexity and DeepSeek, and xhigh on Grok 4.6; older GPT-5 families use their own ceilings)."

Addedv4.4.12Aug 22, 2026
Removedv4.4.11Jul 17, 2026

Changed8 schema fields changedv4.4.9Jul 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / evidence

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Raw evidence from the authenticated AI caller. It is persisted automatically as durable, SHA-256-addressed caller_submitted_unverified material and transported to reviewers; no manual operator attachment is required. Do not call session_attach_evidence for this routine path.",
+  "maxLength": 200000,
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / description

Previous value: -"Optional per-peer reasoning_effort overrides for this call. Keys are peer ids (codex|claude|gemini|deepseek|grok|perplexity); missing keys fall back to global config. Useful to dial down expensive peers (e.g. Grok grok-4.20-multi-agent xhigh = 16 agents, or Perplexity sonar-deep-research that bills citation + reasoning + search queries separately) for routine reviews without editing the host MCP configs."New value: +"Optional per-peer reasoning_effort overrides for this call. Keys are peer ids (codex|claude|gemini|deepseek|grok|perplexity); missing keys fall back to global config. This is a shared scale: adapters normalize unsupported literals to the selected model's documented enum (`ultra` becomes max on GPT-5.6 and high on Grok 4.5; older GPT-5 families use their own ceilings)."

changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / properties / claude / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "none",
-  "minimal",
-  "low",
-  "medium",
-  "high",
-  "xhigh",
-  "max"
-]New value: +[
+  "none",
+  "minimal",
+  "low",
+  "medium",
+  "high",
+  "xhigh",
+  "max",
+  "ultra"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / properties / codex / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "none",
-  "minimal",
-  "low",
-  "medium",
-  "high",
-  "xhigh",
-  "max"
-]New value: +[
+  "none",
+  "minimal",
+  "low",
+  "medium",
+  "high",
+  "xhigh",
+  "max",
+  "ultra"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / properties / deepseek / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "none",
-  "minimal",
-  "low",
-  "medium",
-  "high",
-  "xhigh",
-  "max"
-]New value: +[
+  "none",
+  "minimal",
+  "low",
+  "medium",
+  "high",
+  "xhigh",
+  "max",
+  "ultra"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / properties / gemini / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "none",
-  "minimal",
-  "low",
-  "medium",
-  "high",
-  "xhigh",
-  "max"
-]New value: +[
+  "none",
+  "minimal",
+  "low",
+  "medium",
+  "high",
+  "xhigh",
+  "max",
+  "ultra"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / properties / grok / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "none",
-  "minimal",
-  "low",
-  "medium",
-  "high",
-  "xhigh",
-  "max"
-]New value: +[
+  "none",
+  "minimal",
+  "low",
+  "medium",
+  "high",
+  "xhigh",
+  "max",
+  "ultra"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / properties / perplexity / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "none",
-  "minimal",
-  "low",
-  "medium",
-  "high",
-  "xhigh",
-  "max"
-]New value: +[
+  "none",
+  "minimal",
+  "low",
+  "medium",
+  "high",
+  "xhigh",
+  "max",
+  "ultra"
+]

First observedv4.4.8Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: evidence is durably persisted and auto-transported without operator attachment, and execution hits real provider APIs unless CROSS_REVIEW_STUB=1. These side effects align with readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true and are exactly what an agent needs to know before invoking.

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?

Three tight sentences: the action is front-loaded, then key evidence behavior, then runtime mode. Every sentence adds operational information, and nothing is wasted.

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?

With 10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and a non-read-only side-effect profile, the description is too thin. It doesn't cover return format, async/poll behavior, failure modes, or how this relates to the surrounding session lifecycle tools.

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 only 30%, so the description needed to explain the remaining parameters. It only elaborates on evidence persistence and vaguely references 'selected peers', while task, draft, response_format, caller_status, and the nested reasoning_effort_overrides remain unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Run a real API review round against selected peers'), which clearly states the tool's core action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like session_start_round or probe_peers, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives useful operational context: evidence is transported automatically and real provider APIs are the default, with stubs only under CROSS_REVIEW_STUB=1. However, it never says when to choose this tool over sibling session/round tools, leaving the choice to inference.

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

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/LCV-Ideas-Software/cross-review'

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