Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Review Helper

Review Helper

by antoinebou12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

Open pull request review

open_review
Read-onlyIdempotent

Open a hosted pull request URL or the demo to view its feature map and receive a compact section index, so reviewers can navigate changes by feature instead of by file.

Instructions

Open a hosted PR URL or 'demo'; show its map and return a compact section index.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "open_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoHosted pull request URL, or demo for the example.demo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call surfaces a map and yields a compact section index, which is real output-shape context, but it says nothing about invalid-URL handling, network/auth requirements, or what the 'map' contains.

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?

A single compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly telegraphic — 'show its map' is undefined — but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, most of what an agent needs is present, including the returned section index. Missing is any note on what happens with a malformed or unreachable URL and what 'map' refers to, leaving a modest gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents the single 'url' parameter including the 'demo' default, so the description only restates it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since there is no additional syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Open a hosted PR URL') plus what the call produces ('show its map and return a compact section index'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with plausible siblings like propose_review_plan or get_workspace, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The 'or demo' clause gives an implicit starting mode for first-time use without a URL, which is useful context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for cases where the agent already knows the section it wants (e.g. read_section).

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