QA Orchestrator

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

prepare_qa_orchestration

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns a fixed checklist for one chosen review profile, outlining focus, required output sections, evidence constraints, and escalation signals for a single scoped QA concern.

Instructions

Return a fixed checklist for one agent_profile. It gives review focus, required output sections, shared evidence constraints, and escalation signals.

Use it for one scoped concern. For a selected bundle, request each review_profiles member separately in session order; use start_qa_orchestration to track the multi-concern review.

Passing agent_profile never selects a session profile. This stateless lookup does not inspect repository content, run the review, or change session state; the host owns final decisions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_profile`	Yes	Choose one fixed specialist profile: code_explorer maps execution and evidence; code_reviewer reviews implementation; pr_test_analyzer reviews coverage; security_reviewer and silent_failure_hunter target security and silent failures; ruby_reviewer, python_reviewer, typescript_reviewer, react_reviewer, and mobile_reviewer target their named stacks. Choose from changed files and confirmed stack.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`focus`	Yes	The profile's review boundary and primary responsibility.
`profile`	Yes
`read_only`	No
`constraints`	Yes	Shared limits for this read-only review profile.
`display_name`	Yes
`required_sections`	Yes	Profile-specific output sections; use these instead of a generic template.
`escalation_signals`	No	Conditions to assess against evidence. A listed condition is not itself a deep-review trigger; set risk_signals only when the corresponding evidence-based condition applies.
`host_owns_decisions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.12Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/closed-world annotations, the description discloses that this is a stateless lookup that does not inspect repository content, run the review, or change session state, and that the host owns final decisions. It also pre-empts a likely misreading: passing agent_profile never selects a session profile.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core behavior in the first sentence, then usage guidance, then scope constraints. Slightly dense and broken across lines, but every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still characterizes the checklist's contents. Combined with the statelessness and session-selection caveats, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 100% and the enum description already maps each profile to its concern, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by clarifying what agent_profile does not do (it never selects a session profile), which is not derivable from the schema.

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 ('Return a fixed checklist for one agent_profile') and enumerates what the checklist contains (review focus, required output sections, shared evidence constraints, escalation signals). It is clearly distinguishable from the session-lifecycle siblings (start/advance/finish/get_qa_orchestration).

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 scopes usage to 'one scoped concern' and names the alternative path: request each review_profiles member separately in session order for a bundle, and use start_qa_orchestration to track the multi-concern review. Both when-to-use and the sibling alternative are spelled out.

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

Deploy Server