Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dzstudio-mcp

dzstudio-mcp

by siemendev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

request_review

Switches the session to waiting for review with an optional status summary and releases all held locks so a human can save or discard the agent's work.

Instructions

Done: switch to "waiting for review" with an optional summary as status and release everything held. A person then saves or discards; agents never save.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "request_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNo
sessionNoSession handle (s1, s2 …) or session id; default: the current session

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavior: it releases everything held and hands control to a person who saves or discards, while agents never save. It still leaves undefined what 'held' resources are, whether release is immediate, and what permissions or failure modes apply.

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 definition is two short sentences with the main action and the human-review constraint front-loaded. The fragment 'Done:' is slightly cryptic but does not add significant waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the central contract of status switching, releasing held work, and human approval. Given the lack of annotations and an output schema, it should say more about what is released, session behavior, and what the review state implies before an agent can confidently predict consequences.

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?

The description adds meaning for the status parameter by describing it as an optional summary, which is useful beyond the bare schema. The session parameter is documented in the schema, and with 50% schema description coverage the remaining gap is only partly compensated.

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?

The description states concrete actions: switching to 'waiting for review' and releasing everything held. This distinguishes it from a plain status change or release tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Done:' implies the tool is used when the agent has finished its work, giving a basic usage cue. However, it does not explain when to request review versus using set_status or release directly, nor does it state when not to use 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

Other Tools