Skip to main content
Glama

review_technical_decision

Assess the impact, trade-offs, and risks of a technical decision. Evaluate alternatives and receive expert architectural recommendations tailored to your context.

Instructions

Review and evaluate a technical decision using GLM-4.6 architectural expertise. Assesses impact, trade-offs, alternatives, risks, and provides recommendations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
decisionYesThe technical decision to review
contextYesContext including current architecture, constraints, and objectives

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that reviews a technical decision by building a prompt with decision and context, then delegates to consultArchitecture() for GLM-4.6 processing.
      async reviewTechnicalDecision(decision: string, context: string): Promise<string> {
        const query = `Review the following technical decision:
    
    Decision: ${decision}
    
    Context: ${context}
    
    Provide:
    1. Architectural impact assessment
    2. Trade-offs analysis
    3. Alternative approaches
    4. Risk evaluation
    5. Recommendation with justification`;
    
        return this.consultArchitecture(query);
      }
  • src/index.ts:79-96 (registration)
    Tool registration with name 'review_technical_decision', description, and inputSchema requiring 'decision' and 'context' string parameters.
    {
      name: 'review_technical_decision',
      description: 'Review and evaluate a technical decision using GLM-4.6 architectural expertise. Assesses impact, trade-offs, alternatives, risks, and provides recommendations.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          decision: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The technical decision to review',
          },
          context: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Context including current architecture, constraints, and objectives',
          },
        },
        required: ['decision', 'context'],
      },
    },
  • Input schema defining two required string parameters: 'decision' and 'context'.
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          decision: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The technical decision to review',
          },
          context: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Context including current architecture, constraints, and objectives',
          },
        },
        required: ['decision', 'context'],
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:185-196 (registration)
    Call tool handler case that extracts decision and context args and invokes glmClient.reviewTechnicalDecision().
    case 'review_technical_decision': {
      const { decision, context } = args as { decision: string; context: string };
      const response = await glmClient.reviewTechnicalDecision(decision, context);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: response,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Helper method consultArchitecture() that reviewTechnicalDecision delegates to. Calls GLM-4.6 API with a system prompt for architecture expertise.
      async consultArchitecture(query: string, context?: string): Promise<string> {
        const systemPrompt = `You are an elite software architecture consultant specializing in enterprise-grade system design, scalability patterns, security architecture, and technical decision-making. 
    
    Your expertise includes:
    - Distributed systems architecture and microservices design
    - Cloud-native patterns and containerization strategies
    - Database architecture and data modeling
    - API design (REST, GraphQL, gRPC)
    - Security architecture and threat modeling
    - Performance optimization and scalability
    - DevOps and CI/CD pipeline architecture
    - Modern frontend and backend frameworks
    - System integration patterns
    
    Provide concise, actionable architectural guidance with enterprise-grade best practices. Focus on technical accuracy, scalability, maintainability, and security.`;
    
        const messages: GLMMessage[] = [
          { role: 'system', content: systemPrompt },
        ];
    
        if (context) {
          messages.push({
            role: 'user',
            content: `Context:\n${context}\n\nArchitectural Query:\n${query}`,
          });
        } else {
          messages.push({ role: 'user', content: query });
        }
    
        const request: GLMRequest = {
          model: this.model,
          messages,
          temperature: 0.7,
          top_p: 0.9,
          max_tokens: 4096,
          stream: false,
        };
    
        try {
          const response = await this.client.post<GLMResponse>('/chat/completions', request);
          
          if (!response.data.choices || response.data.choices.length === 0) {
            throw new Error('GLM-4.6 returned empty response');
          }
    
          return response.data.choices[0].message.content;
        } catch (error) {
          if (axios.isAxiosError(error)) {
            const status = error.response?.status;
            const message = error.response?.data?.error?.message || error.message;
            throw new Error(`GLM-4.6 API Error (${status}): ${message}`);
          }
          throw error;
        }
      }
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. It describes the tool's function (assessing impact, etc.) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, has side effects, or any limitations. It is adequate but could be improved with more behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second expands on the evaluation scope. Excellent front-loading and efficiency.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and evaluation areas but does not specify the return format or any error cases. With no output schema, some description of the output structure would improve completeness. Adequate for a simple tool.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context about the expertise used but does not provide substantial additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Review and evaluate' and the resource 'technical decision'. It adds specificity by mentioning 'using GLM-4.6 architectural expertise' and lists what will be assessed (impact, trade-offs, alternatives, risks) and output (recommendations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'consult_architecture' which are more general.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_code_architecture' or 'design_system_architecture'. The description implies usage for structured decision review but does not state when not to use it or provide context for selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bobvasic/glm-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server