Skip to main content
Glama
jigyasudham

veto

by jigyasudham
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

veto_rca

Read-only

Analyze stack traces or error messages to produce a structured root-cause hypothesis and identify the commit that likely introduced the bug.

Instructions

Stack trace or error description → structured root-cause hypothesis with likely introducing commit. Reads the code at the stack trace's file:line locations and the recent git log, then runs debugger analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorYesError message or stack trace to analyze.
file_hintNoSuspected file path for focused git blame (optional).
project_dirNoGit repo root for blame context (optional).
agent_responseNoPhase 2 response from the host AI (JSON). Pass this back when prompted by the server to complete the agentic loop.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / agent_response
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Phase 2 response from the host AI (JSON). Pass this back when prompted by the server to complete the agentic loop.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv2.7.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses what it reads (file:line source, recent git log), that it runs debugger analysis, and that there's a multi-phase agentic loop. It doesn't say what the hypothesis looks like, though no output schema exists.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads input→output and then the mechanism, with almost no filler. It could be slightly tighter, but it stays useful without padding.

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?

Covers the core mechanics for a 4-param read-only analysis tool with no output schema, including the agentic loop hinted at by agent_response. But it omits practical caller needs: what the hypothesis contains, the cost/latency of debugger analysis, and how the loop continuation works.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters clearly, including the optional file_hint, project_dir, and the phase-2 agent_response. The description only reiterates error input and the general git/code mechanism; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

Specific input (stack trace/error) → specific output (root-cause hypothesis with introducing commit), and it names the mechanism (reads code at file:line, git log, debugger analysis). It would earn a 5 by differentiating itself from the nearest siblings, e.g. veto_git_blame and veto_sre_advisor, which it doesn't do.

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 statement of when to reach for this versus alternatives. A user with a failing stack trace has veto_git_blame, veto_explain, veto_sre_advisor and veto_postmortem to choose from, and nothing here routes them. The one implicit cue is that it needs an error input.

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