Skip to main content
Glama
LCV-Ideas-Software

cross-review

by LCV-Ideas-Software
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Start Review Round

session_start_round

Launch an async cross-AI peer-review round and get a session ID to poll. Evidence is stored and delivered to reviewers automatically, removing manual attachment.

Instructions

Start a real peer-review round in the background and return immediately with a session_id/job_id for polling. AI evidence supplied in evidence is persisted durably and transported automatically; no manual operator attachment is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYes
draftYes
peersNo
callerNooperator
evidenceNoRaw evidence from the authenticated AI caller. It is persisted automatically as durable, SHA-256-addressed caller_submitted_unverified material and transported to reviewers; no manual operator attachment is required. Do not call session_attach_evidence for this routine path.
session_idNo
review_focusNoOptional provider-neutral review scope anchor. This is not Claude Code's /focus UI command; it is injected as a front-loaded Review Focus prompt block for every selected peer, including OUT OF SCOPE handling for unrelated findings.
caller_statusNoREADY
response_formatNojson
reasoning_effort_overridesNoOptional per-peer reasoning_effort overrides for this call. Keys are peer ids (codex|claude|gemini|deepseek|grok|perplexity); missing keys fall back to global config. This is a shared scale: adapters normalize unsupported literals to the selected model's documented enum (`ultra` becomes max on GPT-5.6, Kimi K3 via Perplexity and DeepSeek, and xhigh on Grok 4.6; older GPT-5 families use their own ceilings).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv4.4.13
    • changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / description
      Previous value: -"Optional per-peer reasoning_effort overrides for this call. Keys are peer ids (codex|claude|gemini|deepseek|grok|perplexity); missing keys fall back to global config. This is a shared scale: adapters normalize unsupported literals to the selected model's documented enum (`ultra` becomes max on GPT-5.6 and high on Grok 4.5; older GPT-5 families use their own ceilings)."New value: +"Optional per-peer reasoning_effort overrides for this call. Keys are peer ids (codex|claude|gemini|deepseek|grok|perplexity); missing keys fall back to global config. This is a shared scale: adapters normalize unsupported literals to the selected model's documented enum (`ultra` becomes max on GPT-5.6, Kimi K3 via Perplexity and DeepSeek, and xhigh on Grok 4.6; older GPT-5 families use their own ceilings)."
  2. Changed8 schema fields changedv4.4.9
    • addedInput schema / properties / evidence
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Raw evidence from the authenticated AI caller. It is persisted automatically as durable, SHA-256-addressed caller_submitted_unverified material and transported to reviewers; no manual operator attachment is required. Do not call session_attach_evidence for this routine path.",
+  "maxLength": 200000,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / description
      Previous value: -"Optional per-peer reasoning_effort overrides for this call. Keys are peer ids (codex|claude|gemini|deepseek|grok|perplexity); missing keys fall back to global config. Useful to dial down expensive peers (e.g. Grok grok-4.20-multi-agent xhigh = 16 agents, or Perplexity sonar-deep-research that bills citation + reasoning + search queries separately) for routine reviews without editing the host MCP configs."New value: +"Optional per-peer reasoning_effort overrides for this call. Keys are peer ids (codex|claude|gemini|deepseek|grok|perplexity); missing keys fall back to global config. This is a shared scale: adapters normalize unsupported literals to the selected model's documented enum (`ultra` becomes max on GPT-5.6 and high on Grok 4.5; older GPT-5 families use their own ceilings)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / properties / claude / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "none",
-  "minimal",
-  "low",
-  "medium",
-  "high",
-  "xhigh",
-  "max"
-]New value: +[
+  "none",
+  "minimal",
+  "low",
+  "medium",
+  "high",
+  "xhigh",
+  "max",
+  "ultra"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / properties / codex / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "none",
-  "minimal",
-  "low",
-  "medium",
-  "high",
-  "xhigh",
-  "max"
-]New value: +[
+  "none",
+  "minimal",
+  "low",
+  "medium",
+  "high",
+  "xhigh",
+  "max",
+  "ultra"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / properties / deepseek / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "none",
-  "minimal",
-  "low",
-  "medium",
-  "high",
-  "xhigh",
-  "max"
-]New value: +[
+  "none",
+  "minimal",
+  "low",
+  "medium",
+  "high",
+  "xhigh",
+  "max",
+  "ultra"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / properties / gemini / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "none",
-  "minimal",
-  "low",
-  "medium",
-  "high",
-  "xhigh",
-  "max"
-]New value: +[
+  "none",
+  "minimal",
+  "low",
+  "medium",
+  "high",
+  "xhigh",
+  "max",
+  "ultra"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / properties / grok / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "none",
-  "minimal",
-  "low",
-  "medium",
-  "high",
-  "xhigh",
-  "max"
-]New value: +[
+  "none",
+  "minimal",
+  "low",
+  "medium",
+  "high",
+  "xhigh",
+  "max",
+  "ultra"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / reasoning_effort_overrides / properties / perplexity / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "none",
-  "minimal",
-  "low",
-  "medium",
-  "high",
-  "xhigh",
-  "max"
-]New value: +[
+  "none",
+  "minimal",
+  "low",
+  "medium",
+  "high",
+  "xhigh",
+  "max",
+  "ultra"
+]
  3. First observedv4.4.8

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds useful context: the operation runs in the background, returns immediately, persists evidence durably, and transports it automatically. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 short and front-loaded, with the action and return behavior in the first sentence. The second sentence reinforces evidence handling but partially duplicates the evidence parameter's own schema description, so it is not entirely additive.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 10-parameter tool with nested objects, no output schema, and only 30% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits required parameter semantics, the meaning of `peers`/`caller` enums, response format selection, and how the returned session_id/job_id should be polled in practice.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 30%, and the main description only elaborates on `evidence`. Required parameters like `task` and `draft`, plus `peers`, `caller`, `session_id`, `caller_status`, and `response_format`, receive no semantic explanation in either the description or the schema. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Start a real peer-review round') and adds the key async behavior: launch in background, return session_id/job_id for polling. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling session_start_unanimous beyond the vague word 'real', so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description conveys an async usage pattern (start and poll) and the evidence parameter explicitly says 'Do not call session_attach_evidence for this routine path', giving one clear exclusion. However, it never states when to prefer this over run_until_unanimous, session_start_unanimous, or ask_peers, so the guidance is mostly implied.

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/LCV-Ideas-Software/cross-review'

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