Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Review Helper

Review Helper

by antoinebou12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

Load visual workspace

get_workspace
Read-onlyIdempotent

Loads workspace data for the embedded viewer using a review snapshot ID, letting a chat host display the review workspace.

Instructions

Load workspace data for the embedded viewer.

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": {
      "review_id": "<review_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_workspace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
review_idYesReview snapshot ID to load into the viewer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that output is destined for the embedded viewer; it says nothing about payload size, whether the load is cached, or what a missing/invalid review_id yields. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 fits.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the viewer context placed early. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should convey what 'workspace data' actually contains for a calling agent, and it does not. Given that richer annotations cover safety, the remaining gap is purely about payload semantics, which is exactly what is missing.

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% and the single review_id parameter is already documented as the snapshot ID to load. The description restates the same idea ('workspace data for the viewer') without adding format, valid-value, or failure-mode detail, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Load' plus resource 'workspace data' gives a recognizable action, but 'workspace data' is not defined (layout? sections? review content?), and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like open_review or read_section. The phrase 'for the embedded viewer' narrows the consumer but not the payload.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as open_review or read_section, nor any prerequisite or sequencing hint. The only implicit signal is 'embedded viewer', which is a context, not a decision rule.

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