mrt-fe-review-washer

by jaeuk-mrt

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes (e.g., review.collect_diff vs review.make_prompt). However, task.complete, task.update_status, and task.execute all involve status changes, which could lead to confusion about which to use.
Naming Consistency4/5
Names follow a consistent domain.action pattern with snake_case (e.g., review.collect_diff, task.update_status). Minor deviations like task.from_review and task.stats break the verb-first convention.
Tool Count3/5
17 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the two clear domains (review and task) justify the count. It feels a bit heavy but manageable.
Completeness4/5
The review pipeline (collect, prompt, save, list, get, export) and task lifecycle (create, list, get, update, execute, verify, complete, delete, stats) are well covered. Minor gaps like review deletion or update are not critical for the workflow.
Average 3.2/5 across 17 of 17 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely restates the tool name without revealing critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, side effects on related data, or permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this lack of transparency is a significant risk.
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 description is extremely short, but it simply restates the tool name ('deletes a task') and does not use the space to provide any additional value. This is under-specification rather than conciseness, as the sentence fails to earn its place by adding context.
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 destructive nature, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention reversibility, impacts on related items, or any conditions that must be met before deletion. While the parameter count is minimal, the absence of behavioral context leaves the description incomplete.
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?
The schema already fully describes the only parameter (id) with a basic type and description. The tool description adds no new meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional context is needed for the parameter itself.
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 action 'delete' and the resource 'task', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like task.create, task.get, and task.update_status. Despite being terse, it unambiguously communicates the tool's core function.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where deletion is appropriate. Sibling tools like task.complete or task.update_status are not referenced, leaving an agent without direction for selecting the right operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. However, the only behavioral detail it provides (base 'main' converts to 'origin/main') is already in the schema's base parameter description, adding no new transparency. It does not mention side effects, return format, or error conditions.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary function and includes an important conversion rule. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It states the core operation but omits usage context, parameter details for half the parameters, and specifics about the return value, leaving the agent without enough information to fully understand when and how to invoke the tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 50%, so the description should compensate. It clarifies the relationship between base and head through the git diff syntax, but fails to explain contextLines and provides no additional meaning beyond the schema for repoPath. The undocumented head parameter is somewhat addressed, but contextLines remains unexplained.
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 collects and returns git diff(base...head), specifying the resource and action. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling review tools, but the function is distinct enough that an agent can infer its purpose.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like review.make_prompt or review.save. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context or criteria for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool lists saved reviews; it does not disclose ordering, filtering, pagination behavior, or the shape of the returned data. This is minimal beyond what the name implies.
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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, the tool is under-specified. A list tool would benefit from clarifying whether the list is paginated, sorted, or filtered, and whether the limit parameter controls the number of results returned. The current description leaves these aspects ambiguous.
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 schema has no description coverage (0%), and the tool description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The agent is left to infer its meaning from the parameter name and schema constraints. The description adds no value beyond the schema's built-in metadata.
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 retrieves a list of saved reviews ('저장된 리뷰 목록을 조회합니다'), using a specific verb and resource. It is clear in purpose but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools such as review.get.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer review.list over review.get or other list tools, and no exclusions or preconditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses only that the tool persists data and returns an ID, but omits crucial details such as whether it overwrites existing reviews, validation side effects, error handling, or auth requirements.
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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and outcome. No filler or redundant words, making it highly efficient.
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 complexity of the input schema (nested objects, enums, 5 parameters) and the lack of an output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not mention required parameters, the return format beyond an ID, or any side effects, leaving a significant gap in context for an agent.
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 description does not explain any of the 5 parameters. The term 'review result (JSON)' is generic and does not clarify required fields like target and summary_ko, nor the meanings of risk, findings, or criteria_feedback.
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 identifies the action ('saves'), the resource ('review result'), and the output ('returns review_id'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like review.list, review.get, and review.export_markdown by emphasizing persistence and ID generation.
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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'save' implies persistence, but there is no mention of when to choose this over review.create or review.update, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the task status changes to completed, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or whether additional conditions (e.g., verification) must be met. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, earning the highest score for conciseness and structure.
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 simplicity, the description is still incomplete. It lacks context about the purpose of 'verification_note' (even though the schema defines it), does not explain what happens after completion (e.g., return value or next steps), and does not relate to sibling tools like task.update_status or task.verify. The agent is left without enough context to use the tool 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters 'id' and 'verification_note' are already well-documented. The description adds no extra semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action: changing a task to completed status. It uses a specific verb (변경합니다) and resource (Task), and its intent is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'task.update_status', which could also modify a task's status, so it falls short of 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 like task.update_status or task.verify. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieves', which implies a read operation, but it doesn't mention whether it returns the full task object, what happens for invalid IDs, permission requirements, or any potential side effects. This is minimal and largely restates the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is somewhat under-specified, making it less informative than it could be, but it earns its place as a concise summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. There is no output schema, so it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes or the return format. It could mention the return value or error behavior to be more complete, but given the simplicity, it is acceptable.
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 coverage is 100% since the sole parameter 'id' has a description ('Task ID'). The tool description adds no extra insight about the parameter, but the schema already documents it adequately, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it retrieves detailed information for a specific Task, using a specific verb and resource. The word 'specific' implies a singular lookup, distinguishing it from task.list, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like task.list or review.get. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It implies mutation ('변경') but doesn't disclose permissions, reversibility, validation rules, or side effects. The schema's enum gives statuses but no transition constraints.
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?
A single sentence with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core action and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral and side-effect context. It only states the basic action, omitting when to use it, return behavior, or potential implications, making it incomplete for a mutation tool.
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%, with clear descriptions for both 'id' and 'status'. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 changes task status ('Task 상태를 변경합니다'), using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like task.complete, which may also modify status.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as task.complete or task.verify. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral details. It mentions verification and information about changes, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the return format is. This is a significant gap for a verification tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the purpose. No redundant information is present, though the second sentence could be more specific. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
The description lacks completeness for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain what verification entails, what specific information is returned, or how it relates to other task operations. The vague 'provides information about changes' leaves important gaps.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Task ID'. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verifies task completion and provides information about changes, using a specific verb (verifies) and resource (task completion). It is reasonably distinct from siblings like task.get or task.complete, though it could be more explicit about how it differs.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a verification context but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling alternatives such as task.get or task.complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the primary side effect: it saves a file. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not mention whether the file is overwritten, where it is saved, or what the tool returns after saving. This is adequate but incomplete for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could have included parameter details without bloating the description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose but omits details like file destination, return value, and whether it overwrites existing files. The simple nature of the tool makes the description mostly complete, but these gaps prevent a higher score.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specific review_id', providing minimal meaning that the 'id' parameter refers to a review identifier, but it does not explicitly map 'review_id' to the schema property 'id' or explain any constraints beyond the schema. The compensation is insufficient for the gap.
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 action: converting a specific review_id to Markdown and saving it as a file. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like review.save or review.make_prompt, which could also involve saving or generating Markdown.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without context on how it fits among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states that statistics are retrieved, without indicating read-only behavior, return format, scope, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that could implicitly be a read operation.
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, direct sentence that conveys the core purpose without fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what statistics are returned, but it merely says '통계' (statistics) without specifying count metrics, time ranges, or grouping. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's output or behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameter semantics to clarify; the description correctly adds no param-related noise.
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 purpose: 'Task 전체 통계를 조회합니다' (retrieves all task statistics), with a specific verb (조회/retrieve) and resource (task 전체 통계). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like task.list and task.get by focusing on statistics.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as task.list or task.get. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. The verb 'shows' implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, which is accurate. However, it does not mention potential sensitive data exposure (e.g., environment variables), permissions, or any side effects, though for a simple display tool this may be adequate.
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, concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, containing no filler or redundant information.
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?
The description lacks detail about the return value or output structure. With no output schema, it should specify what 'shows' produces (e.g., a formatted list, JSON, plain text) and what 'env' encompasses (e.g., environment variables, working directory). This gap leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, and the schema has no properties. Per the rubric, a baseline score of 4 applies when there are no parameters, as the description need not elaborate on parameter meanings.
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 'shows the server-recognized path/env' using a specific verb (shows) and resource (path/env). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on review collection, prompt creation, and task management, making this a unique diagnostic utility.
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 or how it compares to alternatives. There is no mention of typical debugging scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name 'debug.env'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and the modifier 'manually' but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, return values, or error behavior. For a creation tool, this is a significant gap.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple create operation, and no sentence wastes space.
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?
Despite the rich schema, there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, side effects, or usage context beyond 'manual creation'. With 8 parameters and sibling tools, the description is not complete enough to fully guide an agent.
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% with all 8 parameters documented, including descriptions for file, title, category, severity, lines, etc. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.
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 'Creates a new Task manually' uses a specific verb ('creates') and resource ('Task'), with the modifier 'manually' distinguishing it from sibling tools like task.from_review. It clearly states what the tool does without ambiguity.
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 word 'manually' implies usage when creating a task by hand rather than automatically from a review, which is a useful hint given sibling task.from_review. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or any prerequisites, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses one behavioral detail: automatic conversion of 'main' to 'origin/main' for the base parameter. However, without annotations, it fails to disclose other important behaviors such as whether the tool modifies any files, how the diff is obtained, or what the output package actually contains. It does not explain side effects or return format.
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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes a crucial behavior note. Every word serves a purpose, with zero redundancy or filler.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the content or structure of the returned prompt package, how parameters like contextLines or maxDiffChars affect the output, or whether the tool has side effects. The description answers the 'what' but not the 'how' or 'what to expect'.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 40% (only 'base' has a description). The description merely repeats the same base conversion info already in the schema, adding no new semantic value. It completely ignores other parameters like contextLines and maxDiffChars, which are not described in the schema either. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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 creates a 'review prompt package' by combining rules and diff, using a specific verb ('만들어줍니다' - creates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like review.collect_diff (which collects the diff) and review.save (which saves). The resource and action are unambiguous.
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: the tool is for creating a prompt to pass to a model. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., need for a git repository or populated rules). No sibling tools are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 only states that it 'automatically converts' findings, without disclosing side effects (whether tasks are created, if the review is modified), permissions, idempotency, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 sentence with no filler words, front-loading the core action. It earns its place efficiently and is appropriately sized for the simple tool structure.
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?
The tool has a simple structure (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description is too minimal. It does not clarify what the conversion entails, whether it creates tasks in bulk, how it handles existing tasks, or what the output looks like. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more information is needed.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter review_id. The description adds that the tool works with review findings, but does not provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema's 'Review ID' description. Baseline 3 applies.
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 converts findings from review results into Tasks, using a specific verb ('converts') and naming the source (review findings) and destination (Task). This distinguishes it from siblings like task.create, which presumably creates tasks manually.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool should be used when you have review findings to convert into tasks, establishing a clear context (after a review). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like task.create, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON but does not mention error handling, permissions, or behavior when the ID does not exist. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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, front-loaded sentence in Korean: 'Retrieves the detailed JSON of a specific review_id.' No unnecessary words or repetition of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description explains the main purpose and identifies the parameter, but missing details such as error responses and authentication. This is adequate but not complete for a tool with no structured metadata.
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?
The schema only defines 'id' as a string with minLength 1, with no description. The description adds that this is a review_id, giving context. However, it does not explain the format or origin of the ID. With 0% schema coverage, the compensation is minimal but some value is added.
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 retrieves the detailed JSON of a specific review_id, using the verb '조회' (retrieve) and the resource 'review'. This distinguishes it from siblings like review.list by specifying a single review ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase '특정 review_id' implies use when a specific review ID is known, as opposed to listing all reviews. No explicit alternatives are named, but the context is clear enough for a simple getter tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses two behavioral traits: changing status to 'in_progress' and providing an execution guide. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention preconditions, reversibility, or what happens if the task is already in_progress, partially meeting the transparency burden.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds meaningful information: starting execution and the status change plus guide provision.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the core action but leaves ambiguity about what the 'execution guide' contains, any prerequisites, and how it relates to sibling tools like task.complete or task.verify. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.
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?
The only parameter 'id' has a complete schema description ('Task ID'), with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb '실행을 시작합니다' (starts execution) and clearly identifies the resource as Task. It also states two concrete actions: changing status to 'in_progress' and providing an execution guide, which distinguishes it from siblings like task.complete or task.update_status.
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 for starting task execution but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools or state when not to use, leaving the usage context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description's use of '조회' (query) implies a read-only operation, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations and no mention of pagination, ordering, or any potential side effects, the transparency is limited. It adds some value but leaves much to be inferred.
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 exceptionally concise, using two short sentences to convey the core function and a key feature. It is front-loaded and free of any unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with only two parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits mention of the limit parameter, default behavior, or return format. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description could provide more context to fully inform an agent.
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?
The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (limit and status), and the tool description merely restates the status filtering capability without adding new meaning. No additional semantics for the limit parameter are introduced, so it stays at the baseline.
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 queries the task list ('Task 목록을 조회합니다') and mentions filtering by status, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like task.get (single retrieval) and task.stats (statistical view). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
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?
It is implied that this tool should be used to list tasks, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like task.get or task.stats. No exclusions or contextual criteria are provided, leaving usage decisions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mrt-fe-review-washer MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jaeuk-mrt/mrt-fe-review-washer/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jaeuk-mrt/mrt-fe-review-washer)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mrt-fe-review-washer MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jaeuk-mrt/mrt-fe-review-washer/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jaeuk-mrt/mrt-fe-review-washer)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/jaeuk-mrt/mrt-fe-review-washer'

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