Skip to main content
Glama
rodlunt

engineering-audit

by rodlunt

file_issues

Preview or file GitHub issues for each recorded audit finding, requiring explicit user confirmation before actually filing any issue.

Instructions

Preview or file GitHub issues for every recorded finding, via the user's own gh CLI.

    Requires config.issue_mode == "github": if the user chose in-report
    delivery instead, this raises rather than filing issues nobody asked
    for. Requires at least one recorded domain result.

    confirm=False (the default) NEVER files anything and never invokes
    gh at all: it returns a preview {repo, count, titles, instruction}
    so the calling agent can show the user exactly what is about to be
    filed on their repository, and get explicit agreement, before a
    single issue goes out. Filing on someone's repo is outward-facing;
    this confirmation step is mandatory, not decorative.

    confirm=True files one issue per finding that has not already been
    filed (a finding whose rule_id is already in this run's filed set is
    skipped, so retrying after a partial failure does not double-file
    the ones that succeeded). The target repository is `repo` if given,
    otherwise detected from the audited repository directory recorded
    by begin_run's repo_dir. If any issue fails to file, filing stops
    immediately and the error lists exactly which rule ids were filed
    (with their URLs) and which were not, so a retry knows where to
    resume.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNo
confirmNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It openly states that confirm=False never invokes gh and only returns a preview, that confirm=True files issues but skips already-filed rule_ids, that it stops on failure and reports which were filed, and that it raises if issue_mode is not 'github'. This is thorough and safety-conscious disclosure.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is longer than average but every sentence serves a purpose, covering prerequisites, safety behavior, retry semantics, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then details. Slightly more verbose than necessary, but not wasteful enough to warrant a lower score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, safety implications, external side effects), the description is remarkably complete. It covers configuration prerequisites, preview vs. actual filing, idempotency via rule_id skipping, failure handling, and repo detection. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be fully described, but the description still gives a preview shape. No gaps apparent.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema only lists 'repo' and 'confirm' with types and defaults, but no descriptions (coverage 0%). The description fully compensates: it explains that 'repo' is the target repository (or detected from repo_dir if null) and that 'confirm' toggles between preview and actual filing. This goes well beyond the schema's bare types.

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 states a clear action: 'Preview or file GitHub issues for every recorded finding, via the user's own `gh` CLI.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., render_report, record_domain_result) by focusing on outward-facing GitHub issue filing. The verb 'file' and resource 'GitHub issues for recorded findings' are specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly describes when to use: requires config.issue_mode == 'github', otherwise raises instead of filing. Also states the prerequisite of at least one recorded domain result. It explains the dual mode (preview vs. confirm) and when each is appropriate, making the decision clear. Though no alternative tool is named, the sibling tools are clearly for different stages (e.g., begin_run, record_domain_result), so the context is sufficient.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rodlunt/engineering-audit'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server