Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
doc-review

doc-review

by MichaelEight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

review_finish

End the current review round by unlocking editing and presenting your change summary and diff for the user to accept or revert.

Instructions

End the current round: the UI unlocks editing and shows your summary and the diff of your changes for the user to accept or revert.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "review_finish"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootNoAbsolute path of the workspace folder. Optional when only one workspace is open.
summaryNoOne line: what you changed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: the UI unlocks editing and shows the summary plus a diff the user may accept or revert. However, it omits whether the call blocks awaiting the user, what happens if no round is open, and whether it is idempotent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and its effect with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 small two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, this is nearly sufficient, but the missing round-open precondition and the question of whether the call waits on user acceptance are material gaps for an agent orchestrating a review loop.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing that the summary is displayed to the user, which is marginal beyond the schema's own text.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('End the current round') and explains the consequence, which distinguishes it from siblings like review_open and review_wait. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should be called when finished with a round, but the description never states preconditions (e.g., that a round must be open) or what to do instead if no round exists.

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