Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
boltwork-mcp

boltwork-mcp

by Squidboy30
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

trial_review_code

Review up to 500 characters of code for bugs, security issues, and quality — no Lightning wallet needed. Free trial of Boltwork's code review, rate limited to 5 calls per hour per IP.

Instructions

FREE trial code review — no Lightning wallet required. Reviews up to 500 characters of code for bugs, security issues, and quality. Returns the same structured JSON as the full review_code tool. Rate limited to 5 calls per hour per IP. Use this to try Boltwork before setting up a wallet. For full code review with no limits, use review_code (2000 sats).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "trial_review_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesSource code to review (max 500 chars)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.22

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Provides key behavioral info: free, no wallet required, rate limited, returns same JSON as full tool. Lacks explicit mention of non-destructiveness, but context implies it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Efficient and clear.

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?

Sufficient for a simple trial tool with 1 required param and no output schema. Mentions relation to sibling tool and limitations. Could mention output structure but not essential.

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% with a description for the single parameter. Description adds the 500-character limit constraint beyond 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?

Clearly states it's a free trial code review tool with specific limitations (500 chars, 5 calls/hour). Distinguishes from the full review_code tool by mentioning cost and limits.

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 says when to use this (to try before setting up a wallet) and when to use the alternative (full review_code for no limits). Also notes rate limit.

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