Skip to main content
Glama
MykytaStel

repopilot

by MykytaStel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

repopilot_explain_finding

Read-onlyIdempotent

Explains why a reported finding fired by replaying the stored rule decision against the current workspace and reports whether it still matches or drifted.

Instructions

Explain why a finding was reported. Use it when you have a finding_id from repopilot_scan or repopilot_review_change in this session and need to know why it fired or whether it still reproduces. It replays the stored rule decision against the current workspace, returns the full decision trace, and reports whether the decision matched or drifted. For a review signal (signal_id), use repopilot_explain_review_signal; for a file with no finding, use repopilot_explain_file. Local-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceNoWhich report holds the finding: the latest repopilot_scan ("last-scan") or the latest repopilot_review_change ("last-review").last-scan
finding_idYesStable finding ID from the findings array of the selected session report.
line_startNoOptional evidence start line from an ambiguity candidate.
evidence_pathNoOptional evidence path from an ambiguity candidate. Used with line_start to select one occurrence without changing the stable finding ID.
analysis_handleNoOptional `analysisHandle` from an earlier scan or review in this session, to use that report instead of the latest one.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.24.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / analysis_handle / description
      Previous value: -"Optional scan/review handle to select a stored analysis instead of the latest result."New value: +"Optional `analysisHandle` from an earlier scan or review in this session, to use that report instead of the latest one."
    • changedInput schema / properties / source / description
      Previous value: -"Session report containing the finding."New value: +"Which report holds the finding: the latest repopilot_scan (\"last-scan\") or the latest repopilot_review_change (\"last-review\")."
  2. First observedv0.24.1

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it replays the stored rule decision against the current workspace, returns a full decision trace, and reports matched vs. drifted. The 'Local-only' note also signals no external side effects, which the annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then when-to-use, then the alternatives, then the local-only qualifier. Every sentence carries distinct routing or behavioral information with no restatement of the schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be documented, yet the description still summarizes what comes back (decision trace, match/drift verdict). Combined with the session-scoping rule and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the per-parameter descriptions already do the heavy lifting. The description adds provenance semantics the schema does not state: the `finding_id` must come from a prior scan/review in this session, and it distinguishes the `signal_id` case that belongs to a sibling tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Explain why a finding was reported') and immediately scopes it to a `finding_id` originating from named sibling tools. It explicitly names the sibling tools to use instead for other inputs (repopilot_explain_review_signal, repopilot_explain_file), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you have a finding_id from repopilot_scan or repopilot_review_change in this session and need to know why it fired or whether it still reproduces') plus two named alternatives with the exact condition that selects each. Nothing is left to inference.

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