Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
workflow-atlas

workflow-atlas

by claudiu-deving
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_review

Access the saved review for an algorithm, featuring tuned parameters, step-by-step comments, and decision history.

Instructions

Read the saved review (tuned params + per-step comments + decisions) for an algorithm.

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": {
      "algorithm": "<algorithm>"
    },
    "name": "get_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
algorithmYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond 'Read'. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden but omits permissions, error states, or whether review always exists.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Efficient but slightly underspecified.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one param, but missing details like return format or behavior for missing reviews. Not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. Description does not explain the 'algorithm' parameter's format, valid values, or relationship to other tools. No added meaning.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Read' and resource 'saved review for an algorithm'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_algorithm (different content) and save_algorithm (write operation).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as get_algorithm or list_algorithms. Lacks context for selection.

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