Skip to main content
Glama
Peter-N91

hve-squad MCP server

by Peter-N91
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Squad Review

squad_review

Triggers a structured review of changes, plans, or designs, routing to a squad reviewer for quality and standards checks, or to a council for cross-domain go/no-go decisions.

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 or crosses two or more council domains, it engages the council row (architect, security, cost-manager, product-owner, and optionally rai) at the confirm tier. 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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and does so richly: it discloses internal routing (Squad Reviewer at 'auto' tier, council row at 'confirm' for go/no-go or cross-domain), and explains delegated execution behavior (returns Coordinator persona, matched routing, framed dispatch request). This provides deep insight beyond the schema.

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?

The description is 4 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful detail without fluff. It efficiently packs routing logic, trigger conditions, and return behavior.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's internal logic, delegation behavior, and return value, leaving little ambiguity about what will happen and what the agent will receive.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining how the 'request' parameter influences routing (e.g., go/no-go triggers council), but it does not elaborate on other parameters beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb and resource ('Run the squad's review stage') and provides explicit scoping ('review', 'validate', 'check quality', 'council', 'go/no-go'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the review/council workflow rather than planning or execution.

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?

The description explicitly lists when to use the tool ('Use for "review", "validate", "check quality", "council", or "go/no-go" requests') and explains conditional council engagement. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it misses the full 5-level guidance.

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