PatchWarden

run_verification

Destructive

Run whitelisted verification commands in a Direct session to validate code changes, with configurable timeouts for safe and auditable execution.

Instructions

Run a whitelisted verification command within a Direct session. Command must be in the Direct allowlist.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "run_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`command`	Yes	Verification command to run
`review_id`	No
`session_id`	Yes	Session ID
`timeout_seconds`	No	Timeout in seconds (default 120)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.1Jul 31, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / review_id
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv1.5.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds the allowlist constraint but does not disclose potential destructive side effects or return behavior. The 'verification' label could be misleading given destructiveHint=true, but it does not directly contradict annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraint. No redundant phrasing.

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, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., output, exit code) and the significance of the timeout parameter. It only mentions the allowlist and session, leaving the agent to guess about result handling.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond mapping command to 'whitelisted verification command'. It does not explain review_id or timeout_seconds semantics.

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 runs a verification command, specifies the whitelist constraint, and ties it to a Direct session. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_direct_verification_bundle.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools like safe_* versions. The only context is 'within a Direct session' which is a prerequisite, not a selection criterion.

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

Deploy Server