dev-workflow-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Code Review Checklist

code_review_checklist

Generates a tailored code review checklist for React, API/backend, or general code files, helping you systematically review changes before or after edits.

Instructions

Returns a tailored code review checklist for a file, based on whether it's React code, API/backend code, or general-purpose code. Use this before or after editing a file to review it systematically.

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": {
      "filepath": "<filepath>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "code_review_checklist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	Yes	The kind of code to tailor the checklist to.
`filepath`	Yes	Path to the file being reviewed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Returns a checklist' implies a non-mutating read, but the description never confirms there are no side effects, nor does it describe the response shape. It adds only modest behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage note following. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. It could say more about the checklist's return format, but nothing essential to invocation 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 both parameters are documented there. The description's mention of React/API/general tailoring loosely maps to the 'type' enum but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Returns a tailored code review checklist for a file') and explains the tailoring dimension (React vs API/backend vs general). It does not need sibling differentiation since none of the siblings (read_project_file, search_code, git_info, etc.) overlap with checklist generation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use this before or after editing a file to review it systematically,' giving a clear usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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

Deploy Server