Skip to main content
Glama

review.check-ruby-extensions

Verify Ruby extensions load correctly in Re:VIEW manuscripts to ensure proper rendering and prevent formatting errors during writing.

Instructions

Verify Ruby extensions (ReviewExtention) are loaded correctly

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdYes

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function: runs Ruby to require review-ext.rb and inspects $LOADED_FEATURES for loaded review extensions.
    export async function checkRubyExtensionsCommand(options: { cwd: string }) {
      const { cwd } = options;
    
      try {
        const result = await runCommand("ruby", [
          "-r", "./review-ext.rb",
          "-e", "puts 'Extensions loaded: ' + $LOADED_FEATURES.grep(/review/).join(', ')"
        ], { 
          cwd, 
          env: { ...process.env, DEBUG: "1" }
        });
    
        const extensionsLoaded = result.stdout.includes("Extensions loaded");
        const loadedFiles = result.stdout.match(/Extensions loaded: (.+)/)?.[1] || "";
    
        return {
          success: extensionsLoaded,
          loadedExtensions: loadedFiles.split(", ").filter(Boolean),
          output: result.stdout
        };
      } catch (error: any) {
        return {
          success: false,
          error: error.message,
          stderr: error.stderr
        };
      }
    }
  • Tool schema: defines name, description, and input schema (cwd).
    {
      name: "review.check-ruby-extensions",
      description: "Verify Ruby extensions (ReviewExtention) are loaded correctly",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: { cwd: { type: "string" } },
        required: ["cwd"]
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:570-579 (registration)
    Registration in CallToolRequestSchema handler: dispatches to hybridCommands.checkRubyExtensions.
    case "review.check-ruby-extensions": {
      const result = await hybridCommands.checkRubyExtensions({
        cwd: args.cwd as string
      });
      return {
        content: [
          { type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(result) }
        ]
      };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'verifies' extensions are 'loaded correctly,' implying a read-only check, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, what 'correctly' entails (e.g., version checks, dependency validation), or what happens on failure (e.g., returns error codes). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('verify'), making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (verification operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, output format, or parameter usage, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly in this context.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 1 parameter ('cwd') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic details. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. It doesn't explain what 'cwd' represents (e.g., current working directory for Ruby context) or how it influences the verification process.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('Ruby extensions (ReviewExtention)'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., 'review.lint' or 'review.security.validate-mapfile'), which could have overlapping verification functions, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., during development or deployment), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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/dsgarage/ReviewMCP'

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