Skip to main content
Glama
jkudish

jev-mcp

by jkudish
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Gate completion: review a patch and verify claims

jev_gate

Review a proposed patch and verify completion claims against supplied evidence, auto-accepting only when every claim is verified at or above threshold. Unsupported or uncertain claims escalate for review.

Instructions

Review a proposed patch and verify completion claims against supplied evidence in one TypeSafe Jev call. Auto only when the patch review is accepted and every claim is verified at or above auto_accept. Unsupported claims require review; confident contradictions, unknown confidence, or low confidence escalate. The request and claims are assertions to check, never proof; put supporting diff excerpts and test logs in evidence. Evidence is capped at 16 items and 200,000 characters in aggregate. Does not run tests or apply changes. Use jev_review for a patch without claims, jev_verify for claims without a patch review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
diffYesProposed patch, file excerpt, or change summary. Truncated at 50000 chars.
testsNoReported test output for the patch review. Truncated at the same cap.
claimsYesCompletion claims to check against evidence, each truncated at 2000 chars. Up to 16 per call.
requestYesWhat the user asked for; this is not evidence of completion.
evidenceYes
review_atNoScore, safe_to_apply, or per-claim confidence below this escalates. Must be <= auto_accept. Default min(0.5, auto_accept).
auto_acceptNoReview and per-claim confidence at or above this may stand automatically. Default 0.8.
composite_floorNoWeighted composite at or above this is required for auto. Default 0.7.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: 'Does not run tests or apply changes,' evidence caps, claim thresholds, and that request/claims are not proof. This is strong behavioral transparency for a complex 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 compact yet information-dense. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, auto-accept policy, escalation behavior, evidence guidance, safety disclaimer, and sibling routing. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

For a complex tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, thresholds, evidence limits, and alternatives well. A slight gap is the lack of explicit statement about return values or output shape, but the behavioral descriptions largely compensate.

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?

Schema description coverage is high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by advising that evidence should contain diff excerpts and test logs payll and clarifying that request/claims are assertions, not proof. This goes beyond the schema's generic parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('review a proposed patch and verify completion claims against supplied evidence') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools. It names jev_review and jev_verify as alternatives, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use jev_review for a patch without claims, jev_verify for claims without a patch review.' It also describes auto-accept and escalation conditions, giving clear decision context.

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