Skip to main content
Glama

roast

Run a multi-perspective AI critique across domain-specific critics that challenge each other's blind spots. Specify domain and target to receive adversarial feedback on code, architecture, or ideas.

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
slaNoSLA for infrastructure
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.
clisNoSubset of native critics to run. [] = run ONLY the named clients[] (no default critics); omit to run all available.
dataNoData for research
brandNoBrand identity or design system constraints for design domain
depthNoMax depth for file_structure
fieldNoField for research
limitNoMax chars/chunk
scaleNoScale for architecture/infrastructure
usersNoUsers for product
assetsNoAssets for security
budgetNoBudget for infrastructure
claimsNoClaims for research
cursorNoPagination cursor
domainYesAnalysis domain
mediumNoDesign medium for design domain (web, mobile, spatial, print)
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 its native --model flag (1.0.10+); Pro/Claude/GPT-OSS tiers require Antigravity entitlement. Omit to use each CLI's configured default.
offsetNoPagination offset
resumeNoContinue conversation with a new prompt; omit for pagination/page reads
targetYesFilesystem path to analyze (e.g., '/path/to/project' or '.'). Directs agents to the relevant part of the codebase.
clientsNoNamed CLI clients to run, ADDITIVE to the native critics (use clis:[] to run ONLY these). Allows multiple isolated Claude Code clients (up to 16), including custom Anthropic-compatible endpoints, in one roast.
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).
metricsNoMetrics for product
postureNoProcedural posture or use context for legal domain (e.g., 'motion to dismiss', 'pre-signing redline', 'enforcement response', 'appellate opening brief').
verboseNoDetailed output
audienceNoTarget audience for design domain
practiceNoPractice register for legal domain — freeform (e.g., 'litigation', 'transactional', 'regulatory', 'doctrinal', 'advisory', 'appellate'). Modulates the critic's adversary geometry.
timelineNoTimeline for idea
resourcesNoResources for idea
complianceNoCompliance for security
context_idNoContext ID for cached pagination or conversation continuation
deploymentNoDeployment for architecture
commitRangeNoCommit range for git_history
competitionNoCompetition for product
constraintsNoConstraints for architecture
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.
runCoverageNoRun coverage for test_coverage
threatModelNoThreat model for security
jurisdictionNoGoverning jurisdiction or forum for legal domain (e.g., 'US federal', 'NY state', '9th Cir.', 'Delaware Chancery', 'EU').
force_refreshNoIgnore cache
includeDevDepsNoInclude dev deps for dependencies
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool runs parallel adversarial critics, that disagreement is signal, and importantly warns that feedback is 'adversarial perspectives, not authoritative verdicts.' This provides good behavioral context, though it could mention if any side effects exist.

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 purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the complexity (41 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does, its multi-critic mechanism, and the key caution. It doesn't detail return structure but that is expected without output schema. Could be more complete on interpreting outputs or using 'clients' effectively.

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 no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it only explains the overall tool behavior. No additional clarification for complex parameters like 'clients' or 'domain'.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Unified brutal AI critique delivered by a multi-critic panel running in parallel.' It specifies the verb (critique), resource (any domain), and distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it 'consolidates all roast_* tools into one polymorphic API.'

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 usage by saying 'Specify domain for targeted analysis' and mentions consolidation of roast_* tools, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings like roast_cli_debate. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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