fcop-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Write Review

write_review

Record a governance review decision for an artefact, choosing approved, rejected, needs_changes, abstained, or needs_human, with rationale and required changes.

Instructions

Write a REVIEW file (governance-layer decision, per ADR-0017/0025).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Additional Markdown body after the frontmatter.
`decision`	Yes	Review decision. One of: ``approved`` — artefact is accepted; ``rejected`` — artefact is rejected (cannot proceed); ``needs_changes`` — must be revised (requires ``required_changes``); ``abstained`` — reviewer recuses; ``needs_human`` — reviewer escalates to human (ADR-0025, v1.1). The review stays pending until ``mark_human_approved`` is called to close the loop.
`rationale`	No	Free-text rationale for the decision. Recommended for all non-``approved`` decisions.
`subject_ref`	Yes	Reference to the artefact under review — file path for task/report/code_change; fcop.json diff range for role_switch.
`subject_type`	Yes	What is being reviewed. One of ``task`` / ``report`` / ``role_switch`` / ``code_change``.
`reviewer_role`	Yes	Role code of the reviewer (must have ``review_decision`` capability; typically ``layer: governance`` or ``layer: admin``).
`subject_short`	No	Override the ``-on-{slug}`` segment of the filename. Auto-derived from ``subject_ref`` when omitted.
`reviewer_agent`	No	Optional agent/session identifier on top of the role code.
`required_changes`	No	Newline- or comma-separated list of required changes. Mandatory when ``decision=needs_changes``.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.2.4May 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., file creation/overwrite), required capabilities (like review_decision, which is in the schema but not the description), output behavior, or escalation flow. This is a serious gap for a tool with complex governance semantics.

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 sentence with no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices helpful context for brevity, though it remains appropriately concise given the rich schema.

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 9 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the review workflow, the significance of decision types, the requirement for required_changes with needs_changes, or the human escalation mechanism (needs_human / mark_human_approved). An agent relying solely on the description would lack critical operational context.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds nothing about parameters, but per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Write) and the resource (a REVIEW file) with a specific governance-layer decision context. It distinguishes this from sibling read/list tools like list_reviews or read_review, and the verb is unambiguous.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'governance-layer decision' hints at context but does not specify when a review should be written, when to use mark_human_approved instead, or any conditions.

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