Skip to main content
Glama
aryaminus

ControlKeel

by aryaminus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

ck_review_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a submitted review's decision status, reviewer notes, and review URL to check if a human approved or denied it. Poll after ck_review_submit before proceeding with execution.

Instructions

Fetch the latest decision status (pending/approved/denied), reviewer notes, and browser review URL for a previously submitted review. Read-only. Provide review_id (returned by ck_review_submit) for a specific review, or task_id to get the latest review for that task. review_type (plan/diff/completion) filters when task_id is used without review_id. Poll this after ck_review_submit to check whether a human has approved or denied the submission before proceeding with execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idNoTask identifier within the session for scoped operations.
review_idNoUnique identifier of the review to query or act on.
session_idNoOptional session scope: when supplied, lookups for a review or task in another session are denied instead of served.
review_typeNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNo
decisionNo
review_idNo
review_urlNo
reviewer_notesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.13
    • addedInput schema / properties / session_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional session scope: when supplied, lookups for a review or task in another session are denied instead of served.",
+  "type": [
+    "integer",
+    "string"
+  ]
+}
  2. Addedv0.3.81
  3. Removedv0.3.77
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.67
    • changedOutput schema / properties / review_url / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  5. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.38
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "decision": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "review_id": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "review_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reviewer_notes": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  6. Addedv0.3.27
  7. Removedv0.3.25
  8. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.17
    • addedInput schema / properties / review_id / description
      Added value: +"Unique identifier of the review to query or act on."
    • addedInput schema / properties / task_id / description
      Added value: +"Task identifier within the session for scoped operations."
  9. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's 'Read-only' phrase is largely redundant. It does add genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: the polling workflow relative to ck_review_submit and the set of possible decision states returned. It stops short of describing timing/rate expectations for polling, so not a full 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the primary purpose stated first, then parameters, then the polling workflow. Minor redundancy in the 'Read-only' phrase already covered by annotations, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values needn't be detailed, yet the description still characterizes them; combined with clear usage routing, parameter logic, and safety context, an agent has everything needed to call 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 75%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by explaining the interaction between review_id and task_id and clarifying that review_type only filters when task_id is used without review_id. session_id is not addressed, keeping it below 5.

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 (Fetch) and resource (latest decision status, reviewer notes, browser review URL for a previously submitted review), and enumerates the returned states (pending/approved/denied). An agent can immediately tell this is a status-check tool distinct from ck_review_submit or ck_review_feedback.

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 names the sibling to use it after ('Poll this after ck_review_submit') and states the condition and purpose ('to check whether a human has approved or denied the submission before proceeding with execution'). It also disambiguates when to pass review_id versus task_id, leaving nothing to inference.

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