Skip to main content
Glama

agentic_review_execute

Execute automated code review by analyzing GitHub issues for static analysis, security scanning, and quality assessment to identify potential improvements in target files.

Instructions

ReviewAgent実行 - 静的解析・セキュリティスキャン・品質判定

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_numberYesGitHub Issue番号
target_filesNoレビュー対象ファイルパス

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the core logic of 'agentic_review_execute' by executing a GitHub Actions workflow for the ReviewAgent.
      private async handleReviewExecute(args: {
        issue_number: number;
        target_files?: string[];
      }) {
        try {
          const filesParam = args.target_files ? ` -f files="${args.target_files.join(',')}"` : '';
          await execAsync(
            `gh workflow run agentic-system.yml -f agent=review -f issue_number=${args.issue_number}${filesParam}`,
            { cwd: process.env.GITHUB_REPOSITORY_PATH || process.cwd() }
          );
    
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: 'text',
                text: `## 👥 ReviewAgent起動
    
    **Issue**: #${args.issue_number}
    ${args.target_files ? `**対象ファイル**: ${args.target_files.join(', ')}` : '**対象**: すべてのファイル'}
    
    ✅ GitHub Actionsワークフローを起動しました
    
    レビュー結果は Issue #${args.issue_number} で確認できます`
              }
            ]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: 'text',
                text: `❌ エラー: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : 'Unknown error'}`
              }
            ]
          };
        }
      }
  • Input schema defining the parameters for the agentic_review_execute tool.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        issue_number: {
          type: 'number',
          description: 'GitHub Issue番号'
        },
        target_files: {
          type: 'array',
          items: { type: 'string' },
          description: 'レビュー対象ファイルパス'
        }
      },
      required: ['issue_number']
    }
  • server.ts:67-85 (registration)
    Registration of the tool in the TOOLS array used for tool discovery via ListToolsRequest.
    {
      name: 'agentic_review_execute',
      description: 'ReviewAgent実行 - 静的解析・セキュリティスキャン・品質判定',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          issue_number: {
            type: 'number',
            description: 'GitHub Issue番号'
          },
          target_files: {
            type: 'array',
            items: { type: 'string' },
            description: 'レビュー対象ファイルパス'
          }
        },
        required: ['issue_number']
      }
    },
  • server.ts:229-230 (registration)
    Switch case in the CallToolRequestSchema handler that dispatches to the specific tool handler.
    case 'agentic_review_execute':
      return await this.handleReviewExecute(args as any);
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions three types of activities (static analysis, security scanning, quality assessment), it doesn't describe what happens during execution: whether it's read-only or modifies code, what permissions are needed, what the output looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with 'execute' in its name and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is extremely concise - a single phrase listing three activities. While efficient, it might be too terse for a tool called 'execute' that presumably performs significant operations. Every word earns its place, but more context could be beneficial given the tool's apparent complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool name suggests execution/action, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that might overlap, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'execution' entails, what results to expect, or how this differs from related tools. For a potentially complex execution tool in a suite of agentic tools, more context is needed.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how 'issue_number' relates to the review execution or what happens with 'target_files'. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description clearly states the tool performs review execution with three specific activities: static analysis, security scanning, and quality assessment. It uses the Japanese term '実行' (execute) which aligns with the tool name. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'agentic_issue_analyze' or 'agentic_pr_create' which might have overlapping review-related functions.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'agentic_issue_analyze' (which might analyze issues) or 'agentic_pr_create' (which might create pull requests). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ShunsukeHayashi/agentic-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server