Skip to main content
Glama
Change Risk Assessor MCP Server

Change Risk Assessor MCP Server

by Hardik-369

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-assessor

Using npx (No Install)

npx mcp-change-risk-assessor

Related 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 tool
assess_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

    A4.3/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    Only a single tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly stated and self-contained.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    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.

    Tool Count2/5

    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.

    Completeness4/5

    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

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessOutdated data

    Related MCP Connectors

    Related MCP Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Analyzes 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.
      5
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      6
      365 npm
      3
      MIT