Skip to main content
Glama
LCV-Ideas-Software

cross-review

by LCV-Ideas-Software
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Check Submission Preflights

session_preflight_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run evidence and truthfulness gates used in a real review round without calling providers. Check peer-submitted inline or structured evidence directly, no attachment step required.

Instructions

Run the same enabled evidence and truthfulness gates used by a real review round, without calling providers. Peer-submitted inline/structured evidence is checked as review material and requires no separate attachment step.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskNo
draftNo
callerYes
evidenceNo
session_idYes
response_formatNojson

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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: -[
-  "session_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "session_id",
+  "caller"
+]
  2. Addedv4.4.9

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: providers are not called, and inline/structured evidence is treated as review material without an attachment step. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 two concise sentences with the central behavior front-loaded: 'Run the same enabled evidence and truthfulness gates used by a real review round, without calling providers.' Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation details.

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?

For a six-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description does not specify what the preflight result contains or how task/draft/evidence relate to the gates. However, the concise behavioral statement plus annotations make it minimally viable for an agent to choose and invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only hints at evidence as 'inline/structured' and gives no semantics for task, draft, caller, session_id, or response_format. This leaves most parameters underspecified for an agent trying to construct a correct call.

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 states a concrete action: 'Run the same enabled evidence and truthfulness gates used by a real review round, without calling providers.' It clearly identifies the resource as submission preflights and distinguishes itself from a real review round. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'session_truthfulness_preflight_check', so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description implies use before a real review round to validate gates without provider calls, and it explicitly notes that peer-submitted inline/structured evidence requires no separate attachment step, steering agents away from session_attach_evidence. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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