claude-agent-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

claude_ask

Request bounded, read-only code review or second-opinion analysis via an optional file list, without modifying your project.

Instructions

Ask Claude for bounded read-only analysis using an optional file list.

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": {
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "claude_ask"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`cwd`	No
`task`	No	second-opinion
`agent`	No	claude-reviewer
`files`	No
`prompt`	Yes
`no_agent`	No
`max_file_chars`	No
`timeout_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: the operation is read-only and 'bounded' (echoing the max_file_chars/timeout params). It says nothing about the agent subprocess implied by 'agent'/'no_agent', whether the call blocks, or how results relate to claude_read_result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. However, the brevity here reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness given the tool's 8-parameter surface.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is not complete enough to invoke correctly. It omits agent selection, task modes, timeout/char limits, and result retrieval, leaving the agent to guess at behavior beyond the read-only claim.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It explains only the 'files' argument ('optional file list') and vaguely gestures at bounds; cwd, task's review/analyze/second-opinion enum, agent, no_agent, max_file_chars and timeout_seconds are all undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a clear verb-resource pair ('ask Claude for ... analysis') and qualifies scope with 'bounded read-only', which separates it from mutation-style siblings. It stops short of contrasting itself with claude_review_diff or claude_read_result, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this over claude_review_diff or claude_read_result, and no exclusions. The only usage cue is 'using an optional file list', which does not tell an agent which conditions select this tool.

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

Deploy Server