Skip to main content
Glama
LCV-Ideas-Software

cross-review

by LCV-Ideas-Software
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Initialize Session

session_init

Initialize a durable cross-review session by probing provider availability and selecting models before reviewers run, so later review evidence is persisted automatically.

Instructions

Create a durable cross-review session after probing provider availability and model selection. This does not call reviewer models yet. AI callers should submit raw proof through the evidence field of the subsequent review starter; the runtime will persist it automatically without session_attach_evidence or human intervention.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesOriginal task or artifact being reviewed.
callerYes
review_focusNoOptional 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.
response_formatNojson

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv4.4.22
    • addedInput schema / properties / task / maxLength
      Added value: +32000
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv4.4.18
    • removedInput schema / properties / caller / default
      Removed value: -"operator"
    • changedInput schema / properties / caller / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "codex",
-  "claude",
-  "gemini",
-  "deepseek",
-  "grok",
-  "perplexity",
-  "operator"
-]New value: +[
+  "codex",
+  "claude",
+  "gemini",
+  "deepseek",
+  "grok",
+  "perplexity"
+]
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "task"
-]New value: +[
+  "task",
+  "caller"
+]
  3. Addedv4.4.12
  4. Removedv4.4.11
  5. First observedv4.4.8

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds non-obvious behavior: no reviewer models are invoked yet, the session is durable/persisted by the runtime, and evidence auto-persists with no human step. It omits what happens on repeated calls despite idempotentHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and kept to two short sentences with no filler. The trailing sentence about evidence persistence is slightly tangential for an init tool but still conveys useful workflow context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers the workflow position and safety behavior, but for a 4-parameter init tool with 50% schema coverage and no output schema, it fails to explain what a successful call yields (e.g. the session id/handle needed by subsequent tools) or how the two undocumented parameters behave. Adequate but with a real gap.

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 coverage is only 50% (task and review_focus documented; caller and response_format bare). The description adds no meaning for any of the four parameters, and the one field it does name — 'evidence' — is not a parameter of this tool, which risks confusing the caller about what to pass in.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a durable cross-review session') and clarifies the boundary against the review-run siblings with 'This does not call reviewer models yet.' It does not name a sibling tool it is the alternative to (e.g. session_start_round), but the scope is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

States the precondition explicitly — create the session 'after probing provider availability and model selection' — which routes the agent to probe_peers first. It also names an alternative it renders unnecessary ('without session_attach_evidence'), though it does not cover failure/recovery paths.

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