Skip to main content
Glama
cirwel

UNITARES

by cirwel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

request_review

Open a governed, on-record review session to evaluate agent work, recuse declared authors, and enforce identity rules, returning verdicts that support self-correction.

Instructions

Open a governed, on-record review. issue_description is the thesis by default; set use_brief_as_thesis=false for two calls. Proxy-filed reviews should pass reviewed_work_author_agent_ids to recuse declared authors. Requires a session-owned registered identity; refuses with SESSION_EXISTS if one is active, and skips without a session while waiting_input. dialectic advances the session; consult is advisory.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoReason (for action=request/reassign, or required when reconcile_effect marks an effect uncertain/applied)
agent_idNoFilter by agent (for action=get or list)
reasoningNoExplanation/reasoning
root_causeNoRoot cause analysis (for action=thesis/synthesis/consult)
continuity_tokenNoSame-process rebind proof only; never a cross-process resume.
client_session_idNoBinding id for calls in this process; not a cross-process proof.
issue_descriptionNoIssue description (action=request/quick)
proposed_conditionsNoConditions for resumption (for action=thesis/synthesis/consult)
use_brief_as_thesisNoFor action=request or thesis, reuse the issue description or saved session brief as the thesis instead of repeating it.
reviewed_work_author_agent_idsNoRequester-declared author UUIDs to recuse

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / reason / description
      Previous value: -"Reason (for action=request/reassign)"New value: +"Reason (for action=request/reassign, or required when reconcile_effect marks an effect uncertain/applied)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / reviewed_work_author_agent_ids
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Requester-declared author UUIDs to recuse"
+}
  2. Changed6 schema fields changedv3.1.0
    • changedInput schema / description
      Previous value: -"Parameters for dialectic"New value: +"Review session parameters."
    • changedInput schema / properties / client_session_id / description
      Previous value: -"In-session binding id from start_session()/identity(); pass it on same-process calls. Not a cross-process proof."New value: +"Binding id for calls in this process; not a cross-process proof."
    • changedInput schema / properties / continuity_token / description
      Previous value: -"Ownership proof from onboard()/identity(), for same-live-process rebinds only. Not a cross-process resume credential."New value: +"Same-process rebind proof only; never a cross-process resume."
    • changedInput schema / properties / issue_description / description
      Previous value: -"Issue description (for action=request)"New value: +"Issue description (action=request/quick)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / proposed_conditions / description
      Previous value: -"Conditions for resumption (for action=thesis/synthesis)"New value: +"Conditions for resumption (for action=thesis/synthesis/consult)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / root_cause / description
      Previous value: -"Root cause analysis (for action=thesis/synthesis)"New value: +"Root cause analysis (for action=thesis/synthesis/consult)"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the registered-identity precondition, the SESSION_EXISTS refusal, and the wait-state skip behavior. It stops short of describing what a successful review returns or its lifecycle.

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?

Short and front-loaded, leading with the core action before conditions. However, the telegraphic phrasing packs several distinct ideas per sentence and leans on undefined internal jargon, which costs some readability.

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 ten-parameter, destructive-capable, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions and a few key parameters but leaves most parameter semantics and the outcome of a review unaddressed. It is viable but not complete given the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: issue_description acts as the thesis by default, use_brief_as_thesis=false changes call behavior, and reviewed_work_author_agent_ids triggers author recusal. Several of the ten parameters still get no narrative treatment, keeping it short of a 5.

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 governed, on-record review') and contrasts itself with the consult sibling ('dialectic advances the session; consult is advisory'). The jargon 'governed review' is not self-explanatory, but an agent can identify the action and roughly separate it from alternatives.

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?

Provides concrete trigger conditions: proxy-filed reviews should pass reviewed_work_author_agent_ids, and it requires a session-owned registered identity. It also gives mode-selection hints (dialectic vs consult) and the use_brief_as_thesis=false path, though it stops short of explicit 'use X instead of Y' exclusions.

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