Skip to main content
Glama
jkudish

jev-mcp

by jkudish
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Review a proposed patch

jev_review

Score a proposed diff against the original request before calling a task done. Returns rubric scores, a safe_to_apply probability, and an auto, review, or escalate action.

Instructions

Score a proposed diff against the request with TypeSafe Jev before the task is called done. Returns 0..2 rubric scores for correctness, spec match, test gap, and blast radius (the last two lower the weighted composite), a safe_to_apply probability, and an auto | review | escalate action. Auto requires safe_to_apply and min score confidence at auto_accept and the composite at composite_floor; truncated or malformed input never returns auto. Does not apply the patch or run tests. For a multi-file change, pass files instead of diff: the rubric is asked once per file in the same request and the action composes in code (auto only when every file is auto). Use jev_gate to also verify completion claims against evidence in the same call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
diffNoProposed patch, file excerpt, or change summary (whole-change review). Truncated at 50000 chars. Provide exactly one of diff or files.
filesNoPer-file review: one { path, diff } per file. The rubric is asked once per file, all in one request; the whole change is auto only when every file is auto, and the result names the limiting file and rubric. Each diff is truncated at 50000 chars; up to 16 files, and request + tests + all diffs together must stay within 200,000 chars. Provide exactly one of diff or files.
testsNoReported test output, if any. Truncated at the same cap.
requestYesWhat the user asked for; this frames the review, it is not proof of anything.
review_atNoMin score confidence or safe_to_apply below this escalates. Must be <= auto_accept. Default min(0.5, auto_accept).
auto_acceptNosafe_to_apply and min score 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. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.12.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / diff / description
      Previous value: -"Proposed patch, file excerpt, or change summary. Truncated at 50000 chars."New value: +"Proposed patch, file excerpt, or change summary (whole-change review). Truncated at 50000 chars. Provide exactly one of diff or files."
    • addedInput schema / properties / files
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Per-file review: one { path, diff } per file. The rubric is asked once per file, all in one request; the whole change is auto only when every file is auto, and the result names the limiting file and rubric. Each diff is truncated at 50000 chars; up to 16 files, and request + tests + all diffs together must stay within 200,000 chars. Provide exactly one of diff or files.",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "diff": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "path": {
+        "maxLength": 500,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "path",
+      "diff"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 16,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "request",
-  "diff"
-]New value: +[
+  "request"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.1
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the rubric dimensions and that blast radius and test gap lower the composite, the auto-vesting conditions (safe_to_apply, min score confidence at auto_accept, composite at composite_floor), the hard rule that truncated or malformed input never returns auto, the per-file composition rule, and the explicit non-behaviors (does not apply patch, does not run tests).

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then thresholds, then the multi-file alternative, then the sibling pointer. Dense but nearly every clause carries unique information; the long compound sentences around the auto conditions are the only mild cost to readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does, specifying the 0..2 rubric scores, the safe_to_apply probability, the auto | review | escalate action, and the limiting-file reporting for multi-file input. Input limits and constraints from the schema are reinforced rather than repeated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema: the diff-vs-files exclusivity rationale, the composition behavior where 'auto only when every file is auto' and 'the result names the limiting file and rubric,' plus how review_at, auto_accept, and composite_floor interact to gate the action. It stops short of explaining the 0..2 rubric weighting 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Score a proposed diff against the request with TypeSafe Jev,' and immediately scopes it ('before the task is called done'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling jev_gate by naming what that tool adds. An agent can select this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit about timing ('before the task is called done' / 'Does not apply the patch or run tests'), about the single-file vs multi-file path ('For a multi-file change, pass files instead of diff'), and names the alternative jev_gate with the condition that selects it ('to also verify completion claims against evidence').

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