Skip to main content
Glama
Peter-N91

hve-squad MCP server

by Peter-N91
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Squad Review

squad_review

Run the squad's review stage to validate quality, correctness, and standards, or convene a task-fit council for go/no-go and responsible-AI checks.

Instructions

Run the squad's review stage. Routes to the Squad Reviewer (squad tester role) at the auto tier for quality, correctness, and standards review. When the request asks for a pre-implementation go/no-go, crosses two or more council domains, or raises any responsible-AI concern, it engages a task-fit council at the confirm tier: only the seats whose lens the work touches (architect, security, cost-manager, product-owner, rai), with every lens left out recorded in the verdict. Delegated execution: returns the Coordinator persona, matched routing, and a framed dispatch request. Use for "review", "validate", "check quality", "council", or "go/no-go" requests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoOptional autonomy mode for the turn.
tierNoOptional model-tier hint overriding the coordinator's cost-first default.
ownerNoOptional Member Name from team.md to pick a specific named member.
squadNoOptional federation sub-squad to target (state under .copilot-tracking/squad/members/<name>/); omit outside a federation.
contextNoOptional free-form context (the change, plan, or design under review).
profileNoOptional squad profile to seed when the project has no squad yet.
requestYesWhat to review, validate, or take to council this turn.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / squad
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional federation sub-squad to target (state under .copilot-tracking/squad/members/<name>/); omit outside a federation.",
+  "pattern": "^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]*$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses two routing paths with tiers, which seats are engaged for the council path, that omitted lenses are recorded in the verdict, and what the delegated call returns (Coordinator persona, matched routing, framed dispatch request). It does not cover permissions, cost/latency implications, or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and routing are front-loaded, but the middle sentence is a long, jargon-dense run-on enumerating seats and omission-recording rules that competes with the practical trigger information. Information is present but not efficiently structured for an agent scanning for a call decision.

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?

For a 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential context: what triggers each path and what a delegated call yields. The remaining gap is the mismatch between the description's tier vocabulary and the schema's tier enum, which an agent could misread when setting that parameter.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description alludes to tiers ('auto', 'confirm') but these do not line up with the schema's tier enum (fast/default), so it adds little usable parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb+resource ('Run the squad's review stage') and the following sentences specify the routing target (Squad Reviewer / `tester` role) and escalation path to a council. An agent can tell this is the review/validation entry point. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings like squad_plan or squad_research.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions ('pre-implementation go/no-go', 'crosses two or more council domains', 'responsible-AI concern') and a keyword list for invocation ('review', 'validate', 'check quality', 'council', 'go/no-go'). It lacks explicit when-NOT-to-use or named alternatives, which keeps it below 5.

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