Skip to main content
Glama
klarluft

GitWarren

by klarluft
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get review

get_review
Read-only

Fetch a specific code review by its ID, returning the linked repository path and clickable URLs to open it in GitWarren or via tailnet from any device.

Instructions

Fetch one review by id, with the repository it belongs to attached (including the repository path, so the changes can be inspected with git directly).

Each result carries guiUrl, a link that opens this in GitWarren. Show it to the user - it exists to be clicked, and it is how they see this without going and finding it themselves. The link works whether or not GitWarren is running right now, so hand it over without checking anything. If the user says it will not open - the browser reports that the connection was refused - then GitWarren is not running on their machine, and starting it makes the same link work. When the page is served by gitwarren serve or by a plugin rather than by the app, the link also carries that launch's token, which the page exchanges for a cookie; a link minted before a restart says it needs a token, and the newest link is the one that works.

When this machine is reachable on the user's tailnet, results also carry webUrl. The two links are for two situations and neither replaces the other: guiUrl opens GitWarren on the machine the user is sitting at, which is the right one when that is this machine; webUrl opens the same review in a browser from any of their devices - a phone, a laptop across the room - because it names this machine on their tailnet. Offer webUrl when the user is not at this machine, and both when you do not know.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.17

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false) by detailing the behavior of the returned guiUrl and webUrl, including conditions under which each is present, the token exchange behavior, and the troubleshooting advice for when the link fails. This is significant behavioral context that an agent would need to correctly act on the result.

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 long (~200 words) but each paragraph earns its place: the first sentence is the core function, the next explains the critical guiUrl behavior, and the last clarifies the webUrl alternative. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the essential action.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the returned data (review plus repository), the two URLs and their use cases, the token behavior, and the troubleshooting path. There is nothing an agent needs to know to call the tool and present results correctly that is missing.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It does clarify that the 'id' parameter is the review identifier ('Fetch one review by id'), adding meaning beyond the bare integer type. However, it does not elaborate on the nature of the id (e.g., where it comes from) or any format expectations, so the addition is minimal.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one review by id'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling list_reviews by specifying it returns a single review with its attached repository. This gives an agent an unambiguous understanding of what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The usage is implied: use this tool when you have a review id and need the details. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions, such as 'use list_reviews to browse all reviews.' The extensive guidance on how to present the returned links is more about output handling than about when to invoke the tool.

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