Skip to main content
Glama
shivyadavus

Open Kioku

by shivyadavus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Open Kioku Review Patch

review_patch
Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate a proposed patch plan for safety, target constraints, completeness, and regressions. Get a structured assessment with warnings and recommendations before applying.

Instructions

Review a proposed patch plan for safety, target constraints, completeness, and potential regressions. Returns a structured safety assessment with warnings, risk indicators, and recommendations. Use to review a proposed patch plan for safety, target constraints, completeness, and potential regressions before applying it. Returns a structured safety assessment with warnings and recommendations. Do NOT use for architecture boundary and reference validation only (use validate_patch) or for post-edit verification against a plan (use verify_change). This is read-only and does not modify any files.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesThe task name or identifier associated with the patch plan to review.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueNoWrapped non-object output, used for Markdown, TOON, or scalar responses.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.2.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / task / description
      Previous value: -"The task name or identifier associated with the patch."New value: +"The task name or identifier associated with the patch plan to review."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "The MCP structuredContent object returned by this Open Kioku tool. Most tools expose their JSON fields directly; string or scalar tool outputs are wrapped as {\"value\": ...}.",
+  "properties": {
+    "value": {
+      "description": "Wrapped non-object output, used for Markdown, TOON, or scalar responses."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / task / description
      Added value: +"The task name or identifier associated with the patch."
  3. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces that it is read-only and does not modify files, and adds that it returns a structured safety assessment with warnings and recommendations.

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?

The description is clear but slightly repetitive, containing two similar sentences about returning a structured safety assessment. It could be more concise while maintaining clarity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the single parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage, and behavior. No major gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the task parameter. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool reviews patch plans for safety, target constraints, completeness, and regressions. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying what it does not do (e.g., architecture boundary validation).

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?

The description explicitly provides when-to-use context and lists two alternatives: 'Do NOT use for architecture boundary and reference validation only (use validate_patch) or for post-edit verification against a plan (use verify_change).'

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