Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gantry

Gantry

by fourn9
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_review_team

Read-only

Retrieves the review team assigned to a session so agents can identify reviewers and route review work correctly.

Instructions

get review team

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": {
      "arguments": "<arguments>"
    },
    "name": "get_review_team"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argumentsYes
idempotency_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description contributes nothing further — no scope, no eligibility rules, no indication of what a "review team" contains or whether it is session-scoped. With annotations lowering the bar, this still earns only a 2 for near-zero added context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is short, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose, scope, or return value to anchor the reader.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with a nested object parameter, an opaque idempotency_key, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description supplies none of the missing context. An agent cannot confidently construct the arguments object or predict the response.

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% and the schema contains a nested arguments object with basis, intent, and a required session_id, plus an idempotency_key. The description does not mention a single parameter, so the agent must infer from names alone what basis and intent mean and how session_id is obtained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"get review team" only restates the tool name in lowercase; it adds no verb specificity beyond "get" and no explanation of what a "review team" is or what is returned. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as studio_team, reviews, get_change_review, or review_context.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent facing ~40 sibling tools has no basis in the description for choosing get_review_team over review_context, reviews, or studio_team.

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