Skip to main content
Glama
Raffymimii

Gauntlet

by Raffymimii
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

codex_review

codex_review

Submit a diff or files for adversarial Codex review that returns a verdict and ranked findings checked against your code. Read-only; use after any non-trivial change.

Instructions

Adversarial review of a diff or a few files by Codex. Use after any non-trivial change. Returns a verdict and ranked findings with file:line, each checked against the files. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
diffNoUnified diff, when the question is about a change.
tierNolight: fast, cheap model for small ordinary questions. standard: normal reviews. deep: flagship models, for security, money, concurrency, production or a hard bug. auto: decided from the size and subject of the packet. Pick the cheapest tier that can do the job.
modelNoPin a model for the first attempt. Usually leave unset and pick a tier.
pathsNoProject-relative files to include. Keep the list short.
checksNoSpecific checks, e.g. "does the retry loop stop on a 429".
effortNoCodex reasoning effort override. Usually leave unset.
noCacheNoSkip the result cache.
workdirYesAbsolute path of the project. The specialist reads nothing above it and writes nothing at all.
objectiveYesWhat you want decided or found, in one or two sentences. This is the whole task the specialist sees.
timeoutMsNoTime budget per attempt.
constraintsNoRules or context to respect: framework version, invariants, what is out of scope.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the safety-relevant "Read-only" and the return shape (verdict plus ranked file:line findings validated against the files). However, it omits other meaningful traits: that results are cached by default (evidenced only by the noCache param), the cost/latency implications of tier selection, and any timeout behavior. Adequate but materially incomplete for an 11-param tool.

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 trigger, then return contract, then safety. No filler and each clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by naming the return contract (verdict plus ranked findings with file:line). It is nearly complete, with the residual gap being differentiation from the review siblings rather than any missing call mechanics.

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 the schema already documents all eleven parameters including the tier semantics. The description's "a diff or a few files" loosely maps to diff/paths but adds no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (adversarial review of a diff or files) and names the engine (Codex), which is the exact axis that separates it from the sibling gemini_review. The scope is narrow and immediately understandable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Use after any non-trivial change" gives a trigger condition, but the sibling set contains gemini_review, quick_check, security_audit and edge_cases, and the description never says when to pick this over those. It implies usage rather than routing the agent.

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