Change Risk Assessor MCP Server
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Change Risk Assessor MCP Server assess risk of my current diff"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Change Risk Assessor MCP Server
Autonomous Model Context Protocol server for code change risk assessment with ultra-low token budget (50-100 tokens).
Installation
Global Install
npm install -g mcp-change-risk-assessorUsing npx (No Install)
npx mcp-change-risk-assessorRelated MCP server: change-firewall
Purpose
Provides a single MCP tool (assess_change_risk) that evaluates code changes and returns structured risk metadata for consumption by AI agents in IDEs.
Key Features:
✅ No API keys required
✅ Works offline
✅ Ultra-low token budget (50-100 tokens)
✅ 8-word reasoning limit
✅ 10-word advice limit
✅ Classification-based (not prose-based)
Usage
MCP Client Configuration
Add to your MCP client configuration (e.g., Claude Desktop, Cursor, Cline):
Using npx (recommended):
{
"mcpServers": {
"change-risk-assessor": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-change-risk-assessor"]
}
}
}If installed globally:
{
"mcpServers": {
"change-risk-assessor": {
"command": "mcp-change-risk-assessor"
}
}
}Tool Interface
Tool Name: assess_change_risk
Input Schema:
{
"diff": "string (optional)",
"files_changed": ["array of strings (optional)"],
"language": "string (optional)",
"context_hint": "string (optional)"
}Output Schema:
{
"risk_level": "low | medium | high",
"risk_types": ["data_loss", "auth", "perf", "breaking_change", "infra", "unknown"],
"confidence": 0.0,
"reasoning": "max 8 words, fragments only",
"agent_advice": "max 10 words, imperative"
}Reasoning Examples:
"auth logic changed, rollback unclear""schema mutation, irreversible""refactor only, no behavior delta"
Advice Examples:
"run full test suite before deploy""verify rollback plan exists""standard review, check build"
Architecture
This MCP server acts as a pure tool definition that relies entirely on the host IDE's built-in LLM (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) to perform risk analysis.
Ultra-Low Token Budget
Token Target: 50-100 tokens per invocation
Reasoning Limit: 8 words maximum
Advice Limit: 10 words maximum
The server enforces strict word limits to minimize token usage while preserving classification accuracy.
Responsibility Split
The MCP Server:
Defines the tool name and classification framework
Enforces strict word limits (8 words reasoning, 10 words advice)
Validates and normalizes output schema
Truncates overlong responses
The Host IDE's LLM:
Reads the tool description
Classifies risk immediately (single-pass, no chain-of-thought)
Returns fragmented reasoning (no full sentences)
Provides imperative advice (no explanations)
No External Dependencies
✅ No API keys required
✅ No external LLM calls
✅ No network requests
✅ No configuration needed
✅ Works offline
Classification Approach
Classification over explanation:
Immediate risk judgment (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
Fragmented reasoning only (≤8 words)
Bounded vocabulary (no file descriptions, no diff repetition)
Single-pass judgment (no step-by-step reasoning)
Risk Classification
High Risk
Irreversible data changes
Auth/security logic modifications
Infrastructure changes
Breaking external contracts
Medium Risk
Behavior changes with unclear test coverage
Configuration or dependency updates
Performance-sensitive logic modifications
Low Risk
Comments only
Formatting changes
Renames without behavior change
Test-only changes
Refactors with no semantic delta
How It Works
// 1. IDE detects code change and calls the MCP tool
{
"diff": "- const user = getUser()\n+ const user = await getUser()",
"files_changed": ["src/auth/login.js"],
"context_hint": "pre-commit"
}
// 2. Host IDE's LLM reads the tool description and analyzes the change
// (The MCP server does NOT perform this analysis)
// 3. Host IDE's LLM generates assessment following the schema
// 4. MCP server validates and normalizes the output
{
"risk_level": "medium",
"risk_types": ["auth"],
"confidence": 0.65,
"reasoning": "auth logic changed, async pattern",
"agent_advice": "verify test coverage, check integration impacts"
}Design Philosophy
Pure MCP tool definition
No external LLM calls or API keys
Analysis performed by host IDE's LLM
Schema validation and normalization only
No data persistence or state
Deterministic output schema
Machine-readable output only
Autonomous operation in IDE context
Works offline
Available Tools
1 toolassess_change_riskA
Classify code change risk. Return JSON only.
CLASSIFY (single-pass, no explanation):
HIGH: data deletion, auth changes, schema mutations, infra changes, breaking contracts
MEDIUM: behavior changes, config updates, unclear test coverage
LOW: comments, formatting, renames, tests only, pure refactors
OUTPUT (strict limits): { "risk_level": "low|medium|high", "risk_types": ["data_loss","auth","perf","breaking_change","infra","unknown"], "confidence": 0.0-1.0, "reasoning": "max 8 words, fragments only, no sentences", "agent_advice": "max 10 words, imperative only" }
REASONING examples:
"auth logic changed, rollback unclear"
"schema mutation, irreversible"
"refactor only, no behavior delta"
"config change, no tests"
ADVICE examples:
"run full test suite before deploy"
"verify rollback plan exists"
"standard review, check build"
FORBIDDEN in reasoning/advice:
describing files or code
repeating diff content
full sentences
context repetition
explanations
Classify immediately. Be conservative.
Inputs: diff, language, context_hint, files_changed.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Loading tool schema changelog…
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
Only a single tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly stated and self-contained.
The one tool name 'assess_change_risk' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, consistent with conventional naming. With a single tool, there are no inconsistencies to evaluate.
The server has only one tool, which feels too few for a server dedicated to change risk assessment. While the tool is not trivial, the lack of any complementary operations makes the tool surface overly thin.
The single tool provides comprehensive output for the core assessment task, including risk level, types, confidence, reasoning, and advice. However, there are no supporting tools for related tasks (e.g., batch assessment, historical tracking), which is a minor gap given the narrow scope.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Risk-scan a diff, flag AI-generated-code tells, find secrets. 5 of 7 tools need no account.
Review your AI agent's database changes on your schema, with plain-language risk, before they run.
Roast any AI agent idea from your IDE: verdict tier, readiness score, top risk, shareable URL.
Change-aware CI validation and affected-test guidance for coding agents.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceProvides AI coding agents with structured Git repository context including project state, code structure, activity, and risk analysis without modifying or uploading code.53-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI coding agents to analyze git diffs for behavior-aware change reports, map downstream blast radius, and enforce deterministic risk gates through the Model Context Protocol.12 npm4MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAnalyzes code changes using static code-graph and git co-change history to identify likely affected files, returning tiered confidence reports with evidence. Exposes tools for AI assistants to inspect current changes, static impact, historical co-change patterns, and detailed explanations.5MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI coding agents to compute a 0-1 diff risk score for the current branch or any pull request, exposing the driving signals, evidence, tier and resulting auto-approve or human-review policy decision. Agents can use it to decide whether a low-blast-radius, AI-reviewed PR is safe to merge automatically while flagging risky changes for a human.6365 npm3MIT