Skip to main content
Glama

start_review_before_ship

Initiate a deeper security audit after completing the initial review, verifying code safety and gating release with actionable verdicts.

Instructions

Start Guardian high only after a completed first review of the same source snapshot.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_idYes이 릴리스에서 변하지 않는 앱 식별자(예: my-shop-web)
live_urlNo선택 사항인 실제 앱 URL. 승인 없는 외부 능동 검사는 실행하지 않습니다.
user_scopeYes사용자와 권한 범위(예: anonymous, member, admin)
data_classesYes다루는 데이터 종류. 쉼표로 구분합니다(예: account, korean_pii, payment)
workspace_pathNo설치 시 고정된 프로젝트는 '.'을 사용합니다..
live_authorizedNo외부 live 대상의 능동 검수 권한을 운영자가 확인했는지 여부
run_live_reviewNo허가된 live URL에 동적 검수를 실행할지 여부
scope_proof_refYes검수 권한을 확인할 수 있는 운영자 측 근거의 참조값. 비밀 원문은 넣지 않습니다.
business_purposeYes앱이 실제로 제공하는 기능과 이용 목적
public_endpointsNo허가된 공개 엔드포인트 목록(예: /,/api/health)
initial_review_idYes완료된 check_my_app 검수 번호. 코드 수정 후에는 check_my_app을 다시 실행한 번호여야 합니다.
authorization_noteNo능동 검수 권한 범위에 대한 짧은 설명. 자격증명 원문은 넣지 않습니다.
previous_report_pathNo선택 사항인 이전 raw-free Guardian 보고서 경로
run_software_compositionNo의존성·라이선스·공급망 분석을 함께 실행합니다.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
methodYes
findingsNo
experienceYes
review_jobNo
guardian_gateNo
review_receiptNo
primary_workflowNo
application_assuranceNo
auditor_qualificationNo
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal what side effects occur, whether the action is destructive, what permissions are needed, or what operational impact 'starting Guardian high' has. The tool appears to be a state-changing action with zero transparency.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but grossly under-specified. It omits essential information and does not front-load any useful detail. Conciseness without substance is not effective.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (14 parameters, 6 required) and an output schema, the description needs to explain the tool's purpose, return value, and usage context. It does none of that. The single sentence leaves an agent without enough information to know when or how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 14 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says 'Start Guardian high' but never defines what 'Guardian high' is. It mentions a precondition (after a completed first review) but does not state the tool's actual function, resource, or outcome. This is vague and could be confused with sibling tools like continue_review or guardian_audit.

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?

It provides one usage condition (only after a completed first review) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like check_my_app, continue_review, or guardian_audit. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions beyond the single prerequisite.

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/windmillstudio/k-guard-mcp'

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