Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to nesquikm/mcp-rubber-duck. 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/nesquikm/mcp-rubber-duck/master/.claude/agents/tool-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nesquikm/mcp-rubber-duckWrote 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/nesquikm/mcp-rubber-duck/tool-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nesquikm/mcp-rubber-duck/tool-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nesquikm/mcp-rubber-duck/tool-reviewer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nesquikm/mcp-rubber-duck/tool-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nesquikm/mcp-rubber-duck/tool-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00466 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 1mo 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- tool-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
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.
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
Project-Specific Patterns You Enforce
Tool Response Format
All tools MUST return MCP-compliant responses:
// Success
return {
content: [{ type: 'text', text: 'response string' }],
};
// Error
return {
content: [{ type: 'text', text: 'Error: descriptive message' }],
isError: true,
};
Import Requirements
ESM modules require .js extension in imports:
import { ProviderManager } from '../providers/manager.js'; // Correct
import { ProviderManager } from '../providers/manager'; // WRONG
Tool Function Signature
Tools should follow this pattern:
export async function toolName(
dependency: DependencyType, // e.g., ProviderManager, ConversationManager
args: Record<string, unknown>
): Promise<{ content: Array<{ type: string; text: string }>; isError?: boolean }>
Input Validation
- Extract and type-cast arguments from
args - Validate required parameters exist
- Throw descriptive errors for missing/invalid inputs
- Consider edge cases (empty strings, null values, wrong types)
Review Checklist
When reviewing a tool, systematically verify:
-
Response Format Compliance
- Returns
{ content: [{ type: 'text', text: string }] } - Sets
isError: trueon failures - Never returns raw strings or non-compliant objects
- Returns
-
Import Correctness
- All imports use
.jsextension - Dependencies are imported from correct paths
- All imports use
-
Input Validation
- All required parameters are validated
- Type assertions are safe
- Error messages are descriptive
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 125 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A f94387735679
tool-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository nesquikm/mcp-rubber-duck (180 stars, last pushed 6d 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. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
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…