Check a proposed diff for concrete regressions by sending the diff and context to TypeSafe, which returns a structured verdict.
Check a proposed diff for concrete regressions; the diff and context are sent to TypeSafe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diff | Yes | ||
| focus | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| language | No | unspecified |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the diff and context are transmitted to an external service (TypeSafe), which is a meaningful data-handling detail. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what kind of analysis is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no padding. It is tight, though its brevity contributes to the missing parameter and usage detail elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the external-service disclosure is a plus. But with 0% schema coverage, the undocumented 'focus' and 'language' parameters leave the definition short of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only accounts for 'diff' and 'context' as data sent to TypeSafe, leaving 'focus' and 'language' entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Check a proposed diff') plus the goal ('for concrete regressions'). The word 'diff' hints at the distinction from sibling jev_review_code, but no sibling is named or contrasted explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. With siblings like jev_review_code and jev_review_test_output, an agent must guess which review tool applies to a diff versus code versus test output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.