rhizome-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_review_request

Create a review request for a specific issue version, event position, and artifact set, enabling targeted review of exact project state. This operation is deprecated; use replace_review_request.

Instructions

Create a review request for an exact issue version, event position, and artifact set. Deprecated: prefer replace_review_request.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issue_id": "<issue_id>",
      "target_issue_version": "<target_issue_version>",
      "target_event_id": "<target_event_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_review_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`issue_id`	Yes	Canonical issue identifier (ULID or ISSUE-N).
`project_ref`	No	Project reference returned by open_project. Pass it explicitly for stateless routing; omit only when using a configured default.
`artifact_ids`	No
`supersedes_id`	No	Canonical review request identifier (ULID).
`target_event_id`	Yes
`agent_session_handle`	No	Optional durable session handle for request attribution.
`target_issue_version`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`issue_id`	Yes
`claimable`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`resolved_at`	No
`artifact_ids`	Yes
`supersedes_id`	No
`target_event_id`	Yes
`active_attempt_id`	No
`target_issue_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.1Aug 13, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / agent_session_handle / description
```
Added value: +"Optional durable session handle for request attribution."
```
First observedv1.2.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations do not provide read-only, idempotency, or destructive hints (all false). The description adds deprecation status and the 'exact' requirement, but does not disclose side effects, auth needs, or failure modes. It carries some burden, but not enough to exceed a baseline adequate score.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and deprecation notice. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and a clear deprecation message, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks detailed behavioral caveats, but for a deprecated create tool, the provided context plus sibling list allows an agent to invoke it correctly. Not a 5 because it omits any mention of prerequisites or side effects beyond the schema.

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 57%, and several required parameters (target_issue_version, target_event_id, artifact_ids) lack schema descriptions. The description clarifies these as 'exact issue version, event position, and artifact set,' adding meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain all 7 parameters, but it adds significant value for the core ones.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('review request') with precise scope ('exact issue version, event position, and artifact set'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting deprecation and pointing to replace_review_request as the preferred alternative.

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?

Explicitly states 'Deprecated: prefer replace_review_request,' providing a direct alternative and when-not-to-use guidance. This is a clear exclusion that helps the agent choose the correct sibling tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.