Review a pull request by gathering the branch diff and returns structured findings to highlight issues for code review.
Alias of coeus_review: gather a PR or base..head diff then return structured findings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diff | No | Diff | |
| model | No | Model | |
| head_ref | No | Head ref | HEAD |
| pr_number | No | Pr number | |
| diff_range | No | Diff range | |
| base_branch | No | Base branch | main |
| repository_path | No | Repository path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'gathers a diff and returns findings', which implies a read operation but does not mention whether it modifies anything, requires network access, or any side effects. Critical gaps for an agent assessing safety and expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It has no fluff, but is arguably too brief to be fully useful; however, for conciseness it earns a high score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain which parameters are required for different scenarios (e.g., PR vs diff range), what 'structured findings' means in terms of output format, or any operational constraints. An agent would lack critical information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, though very tersely (e.g., 'Diff', 'Model'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gathers a PR or base..head diff and returns structured findings. It identifies itself as an alias of coeus_review, which makes the purpose explicit, though it does not differentiate itself from similar review siblings like coeus_git_diff_review or coeus_review_code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for PR review by mentioning PR and base..head diff, but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. It only notes it's an alias, which gives some context but no actionable guidance on when to prefer this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.