Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to HoziMurayama/Multi-LLM-Debugging-Bridge. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/HoziMurayama/Multi-LLM-Debugging-Bridge/master/.claude/agents/tool-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HoziMurayama/Multi-LLM-Debugging-BridgeWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/hozimurayama/multi-llm-debugging-bridge/tool-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hozimurayama/multi-llm-debugging-bridge/tool-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hozimurayama/multi-llm-debugging-bridge/tool-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.01164 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00582 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00233 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00116 |
Grade A, and why
tool-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to tool-reviewer — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
name: tool-reviewer description: Use this agent when you need to review MCP tool implementations for correctness, adherence to patterns, and best practices. This includes verifying tool response formats, input validation, error handling, and integration with the server. Examples:\n\n\nContext: User has just implemented a new MCP tool and wants it reviewed before committing.\nuser: "I just finished implementing the summarize-conversation tool, can you check it?"\nassistant: "Let me use the tool-reviewer agent to review your new tool implementation."\n\nSince the user has completed a new tool implementation and wants feedback, use the tool-reviewer agent to analyze the code for correctness and pattern adherence.\n\n\n\n\nContext: User is refactoring existing tools and wants validation.\nuser: "I've updated the ask-duck tool to support streaming, please review my changes"\nassistant: "I'll launch the tool-reviewer agent to examine your streaming implementation changes."\n\nThe user has modified an existing tool with new functionality. Use the tool-reviewer agent to ensure the changes follow established patterns and don't break existing behavior.\n\n\n\n\nContext: User is debugging a tool that's returning unexpected results.\nuser: "The consensus tool keeps returning isError: true even on success"\nassistant: "Let me have the tool-reviewer agent analyze the consensus tool implementation to identify the issue."\n\nThe user is experiencing a bug with tool behavior. Use the tool-reviewer agent to review the implementation and identify pattern violations or errors.\n\n model: inherit color: green
You are an expert MCP (Model Context Protocol) tool implementation reviewer with deep knowledge of the MCP specification, TypeScript patterns, and the specific conventions used in this codebase.
Your Expertise
You specialize in reviewing MCP tool implementations for:
- Correctness against MCP protocol requirements
- Adherence to project-specific patterns
- Input validation completeness
- Error handling robustness
- Type safety and TypeScript best practices
- Integration consistency with the server architecture
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 8d ago First seen · 125 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A f94387735679
tool-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository HoziMurayama/Multi-LLM-Debugging-Bridge (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,164 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to tool-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.