Contract
{
"type": "object",
"required": [
"code"
],
"properties": {
"code": {
"type": "string"
},
"focus": {
"type": "string",
"description": "security/performance/readability/bugs/all"
},
"language": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"additionalProperties": false
}{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"focus": {
"type": "string",
"description": "The review focus actually used, echoing the caller's `focus` input (e.g. 'security', 'bugs')."
},
"issues": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"category": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Observed values: 'security', 'readability', 'bug', 'performance', 'style'."
},
"severity": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Observed values: 'critical', 'high', 'medium', 'low'."
},
"description": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Human-readable explanation of the issue."
},
"line_number": {
"type": [
"number",
"null"
],
"description": "1-based line number the issue applies to. Observed null on one issue that applies to the code as a whole rather than a single line (a missing docstring section)."
},
"fix_suggestion": {
"type": "string",
"description": "A concrete suggested fix, often including example code."
}
},
"additionalProperties": true
},
"description": "Every issue found. Observed as a populated array (5 entries) on a vulnerable snippet and a short array (2 entries, both low severity) on a clean one -- never absent, but can be empty for flawless code."
},
"summary": {
"type": "string",
"description": "A short, plain-language summary of the review's overall findings."
},
"quick_wins": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string"
},
"description": "Short, actionable improvement suggestions, distinct from the per-issue `fix_suggestion` text."
},
"code_length": {
"type": "number",
"description": "Character length of the submitted `code` input."
},
"overall_score": {
"type": "number",
"description": "An overall code quality score. Observed 15 (critical security issue present) and 85 (clean, minor style notes only) across the two real fixtures -- a 0-100 scale, lower is worse."
},
"security_flags": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string"
},
"description": "Short security-risk labels. Observed as a populated array on a vulnerable snippet and an empty array on a clean one."
},
"positive_aspects": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string"
},
"description": "What the submitted code does well. Observed as a single entry on a flawed snippet and multiple entries on a clean one."
},
"language_detected": {
"type": "string",
"description": "The programming language the endpoint detected or used, e.g. 'javascript', 'python'."
}
},
"description": "The code review result, as returned at routing.responseResultPath ($.output).",
"additionalProperties": true
}Pricing
Every real charge, itemised. A model that quietly omits one is a slow financial leak, so nothing here is rolled up, and a charge that only applies to some inputs says so rather than being added in.
Prices in this catalog are the provider's own list price, not your bill: Omnial MCP charges provider cost plus a platform markup on top, so what you are charged is higher than the figure shown. For the exact amount a specific call will cost, run omnial_execute with dry_run: true; that number includes the markup and is what we hold while the call runs. It is a quote, not a cap on the charge.
| Charge | Rate |
|---|---|
Per call Flat, regardless of what comes back | $0.324324 |
- Cost basis
- Not recorded
This tool's catalog entry does not record how its final bill is determined, so we will not tell you whether its cost is fixed before the call or reported by the provider afterwards. Either way what is held is a quote rather than a cap: you are charged what the call actually costs, bounded at 2x the quote.
- Updated
- Sep 23, 2026
