Skip to main content
Glama

roast

Engage a multi-critic panel of AI agents running in parallel to deliver direct, adversarial feedback on code, architecture, or ideas. Each critic's blind spots are covered by others.

Instructions

Unified brutal AI critique delivered by a multi-critic panel running in parallel. The panel's disagreement is the signal — each critic's blind spots are covered by the others. Specify domain for targeted analysis. Consolidates all roast_* tools into one polymorphic API. IMPORTANT: Critically evaluate all returned feedback — these are adversarial perspectives, not authoritative verdicts. Weigh each claim against evidence before presenting to the user.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesAnalysis domain
targetYesFilesystem path to analyze (e.g., '/path/to/project' or '.'). Directs agents to the relevant part of the codebase.
contextNoEssential context for the critique. For abstract domains (idea, architecture, security, etc.), this is the primary input describing what to evaluate. For filesystem domains, provides supplementary background (e.g., goals, constraints, team context).
clisNoSubset of critics to run.
verboseNoDetailed output
modelsNoPer-CLI model override. Claude honors overrides. Codex uses the Codex CLI configured/default model by default; set BRUTALIST_CODEX_ALLOW_MODEL_OVERRIDE=true to allow a codex override. Agy accepts a human-readable label ("Gemini 3.1 Pro (High)", "Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Thinking)", etc.) via settings.json swap under flock(2); Pro/Claude/GPT-OSS tiers require Antigravity entitlement. Omit to use each CLI's configured default.
offsetNoPagination offset
limitNoMax chars/chunk
cursorNoPagination cursor
context_idNoContext ID for cached pagination or conversation continuation
resumeNoContinue conversation with a new prompt; omit for pagination/page reads
force_refreshNoIgnore cache
depthNoMax depth for file_structure
includeDevDepsNoInclude dev deps for dependencies
commitRangeNoCommit range for git_history
runCoverageNoRun coverage for test_coverage
resourcesNoResources for idea
timelineNoTimeline for idea
scaleNoScale for architecture/infrastructure
constraintsNoConstraints for architecture
deploymentNoDeployment for architecture
fieldNoField for research
claimsNoClaims for research
dataNoData for research
assetsNoAssets for security
threatModelNoThreat model for security
complianceNoCompliance for security
usersNoUsers for product
competitionNoCompetition for product
metricsNoMetrics for product
slaNoSLA for infrastructure
budgetNoBudget for infrastructure
mediumNoDesign medium for design domain (web, mobile, spatial, print)
audienceNoTarget audience for design domain
brandNoBrand identity or design system constraints for design domain
urlNoLive URL for visual evaluation (e.g., 'http://localhost:5173'). When provided with design domain, critics use Playwright to navigate and visually evaluate the running interface. Strongly recommended for design critiques.
practiceNoPractice register for legal domain — freeform (e.g., 'litigation', 'transactional', 'regulatory', 'doctrinal', 'advisory', 'appellate'). Modulates the critic's adversary geometry.
jurisdictionNoGoverning jurisdiction or forum for legal domain (e.g., 'US federal', 'NY state', '9th Cir.', 'Delaware Chancery', 'EU').
postureNoProcedural posture or use context for legal domain (e.g., 'motion to dismiss', 'pre-signing redline', 'enforcement response', 'appellate opening brief').
mcp_serversNoMCP servers to enable for CLI agents (e.g., ["playwright"]). Enables evidence-backed analysis via external tools. Available: playwright. Auto-enabled for design domain.
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the adversarial nature and warns that outputs are not authoritative, but it does not mention potential side effects, resource usage, or irreversibility. The description adds some context beyond the schema but leaves gaps.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a bolded warning. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 (40 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too high-level. It does not explain the output format, how to interpret results, or guide parameter selection across domains. The warning about adversarial perspectives is helpful but insufficient for complete contextual understanding.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning to specify domain for targeted analysis and that it's a unified API. It does not elaborate on parameter usage or relationships.

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 it's a unified brutal AI critique delivered by a multi-critic panel, and that it consolidates all roast_* tools. This distinguishes it from siblings like roast_cli_debate and cli_agent_roster.

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?

The description implies this is the primary tool for critiques by stating it consolidates roast_* tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when not to use.

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/ejmockler/brutalist-mcp'

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