Skip to main content
Glama
guardvibe

guardvibe

by goklab

review_pr

Scan pull requests for security issues in changed lines and generate GitHub Check Run output, PR comments, or inline annotations; optionally block merges based on severity thresholds.

Instructions

Review a pull request for security issues. Scans only changed lines (diff-only mode) and produces output for GitHub Check Runs, PR comments, or inline annotations. Supports severity gating to block PRs.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "review_pr"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNoBase branch to diff againstmain
pathNoRepository root path.
formatNoOutput: markdown (PR comment), json (structured), annotations (GitHub Check Runs)markdown
fail_onNoBlock PR if findings at this severity or above existhigh
diff_onlyNoOnly report findings in changed lines (true) or all findings in changed files (false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.66.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses diff-only scanning semantics, the three output surfaces (Check Runs, PR comments, inline annotations) and severity-based blocking. It omits whether the tool mutates anything, what permissions/CI auth it needs, and how blocking is signalled to the caller.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then scope, then output and gating. No filler and every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return surfaces well enough to act on; all five parameters are schema-documented. What is missing for a CI-integrated mutation-adjacent tool is auth/permission expectations and how the blocking outcome is reported.

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% and both enums are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces diff_only and fail_on conceptually ('diff-only mode', 'severity gating to block PRs') but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, and its 'scans only changed lines' phrasing slightly oversimplifies diff_only=false.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Review a pull request for security issues') and scopes the work to changed lines, which distinguishes it from repo-wide siblings like full_audit, check_project and audit_config. It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'pull request' plus 'diff-only mode', which signals a PR-scoped review, but the description never says when to choose this over scan_staged, scan_changed_files, check_code or full_audit, nor when not to use it. The reader must infer the routing decision.

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