Skip to main content
Glama
Raffymimii

Gauntlet

by Raffymimii
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

quick_check

quick_check

Submit small code items—functions, regexes, queries, config values—for a read-only second look that verifies correctness before you commit.

Instructions

Fast second look at something small: a function, a regex, a query, a config value, a one-file change. Cheap and quick; use it often. 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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait ("Read-only"), which is valuable, but says nothing about what is returned, that results are cached, or the cost/latency implications of the tier system — significant gaps for an 11-param tool with no annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scope, with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin relative to the tool's complexity — it never says what the specialist returns or in what form. The 100% schema coverage compensates for parameter gaps but not for the missing behavioral/return context.

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 every parameter including tier, workdir, and checks is already documented in the schema. The description's artifact list loosely maps onto paths/diff but adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete purpose: a fast, cheap "second look" scoped to small artifacts (function, regex, query, config value, one-file change). This contrasts implicitly with heavier siblings like codex_review or security_audit, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Cheap and quick; use it often" is a genuine usage directive, and the enumerated small-artifact list bounds when it applies. However, it never says when NOT to use it or which alternative to pick for larger changes, leaving the routing decision 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