rag-rat

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

dream_review

Apply a human verdict (accept, dismiss, reset) to a dream finding by id or prefix to confirm a real gap, reject noise, or clear a prior decision. Verdicts persist across future runs.

Instructions

Apply a human verdict to ONE dream finding by id (a full id or unambiguous prefix): accept (a real gap to act on), dismiss (noise), or reset (clear a prior verdict, back to open). Dream only proposes; this is how the reviewer confirms. The verdict survives future dream runs. Mirrors rag-rat dream <id> --accept|--dismiss|--reset.

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": {
      "finding": "<finding>",
      "verdict": "<verdict>"
    },
    "name": "dream_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`finding`	Yes	The finding id from the `dream` worklist — a full id or an unambiguous git-style PREFIX.
`verdict`	Yes	`accept` / `dismiss` / `reset`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.10.1Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that tool applies a human verdict (write/mutation), that the verdict survives future dream runs, and explains each verdict's effect. Does not explicitly state it's a write operation, but clear enough.

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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action. Each 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 tool with 2 params and no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, persistence, and relationship to dream. Could mention return value but not essential for correct usage.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value: explains finding id can be a prefix, summarizes verdicts with context (e.g., 'clear a prior accept/dismiss' for reset). Adds clarity beyond schema descriptions.

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 the verb 'apply', specific resource 'dream finding' by id, and the three verdicts accept/dismiss/reset. Distinguishes from sibling 'dream' by noting 'Dream only proposes; this is how the reviewer confirms.'

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 explicit context: 'Dream only proposes; this is how the reviewer confirms.' Implies usage after dream runs. Mentions verdict persistence. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear. Reference to CLI command helps.

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