Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
claude-agent-bridge

claude-agent-bridge

by pinkpanther7929
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

claude_review_diff

Review the current git diff or selected diff paths by sending them to a Claude reviewer for bounded code review and analysis.

Instructions

Ask Claude to review the current git diff or selected diff paths.

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_review_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNo
agentNoclaude-reviewer
promptYes
no_agentNo
diff_pathsNo
max_diff_charsNo
timeout_secondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails: it says nothing about whether a subagent is spawned, whether the call blocks for up to timeout_seconds, cost/latency, what no_agent changes, or how results are surfaced (presumably via claude_read_result). 'Ask Claude to review' omits all operational context for a 7-parameter tool.

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 clean, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but for a 7-parameter tool with defaults and truncation limits, this level of brevity reads as under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

A complex invocation (agent selection, diff scoping, character cap, timeout) with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers only the top-level intent. An agent cannot confidently set the optional parameters or predict the outcome.

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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and mostly doesn't. It hints at 'selected diff paths' for diff_paths, but cwd, agent, no_agent, max_diff_chars, timeout_seconds, and even the required prompt are unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('review') and resource ('current git diff or selected diff paths'), which is distinguishable from generic siblings like claude_ask. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast with siblings, but the diff-scoped framing is clear enough to route selection.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus claude_ask or claude_read_result, no prerequisites, and no mention of agent configuration or result retrieval. The diff context implies usage but nothing is stated.

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