Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coderocket-mcp

coderocket-mcp

by mlgraham
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_review

Retrieve detailed code review results with all inline comments grouped by severity, enabling quick prioritization of fixes.

Instructions

Get detailed code review with all inline comments organized by severity.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "review_id": "<review_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
review_idYesReview ID from list_reviews

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output organization (severity-sorted comments) but does not disclose read-only nature, error responses, permissions, or rate limits, leaving significant behavioral context unaddressed.

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 a single sentence, under 15 words, with the key action verb and output detail front-loaded. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description states the core function and output characteristic. However, with no output schema or annotations, it lacks information on return structure, error cases, or authentication, making it only minimally complete.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter review_id with a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'detailed code review' and qualifies it with 'all inline comments organized by severity'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_reviews, which presumably lists reviews without detail.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage when a detailed review with comments is needed, contrasting with list_reviews by emphasizing 'detailed' and 'all inline comments'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, missing an explicit exclusion.

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