Review a FastMCP PR

Review whether the change should ship, with evidence for its intended behavior as well as its implementation. Use the same procedure for maintainer, contributor, and agent drafts. For an unpublished change, record the base and local diff and skip GitHub-only steps. For an external contributor's assignment decision, start with review-issue.

For review-only tasks, assess and report; repair, push, and monitoring steps apply only when that follow-through is in scope. Automated reviewers use the same substantive checks and their required findings format. Do not wait for your own bot review or manage the PR lifecycle. If the review environment cannot run tests or delegate an adversarial pass, state that limit rather than claiming those checks passed.

Procedure

1. Establish the scope. Read AGENTS.md, the contribution policy in the development guide, the issue's full discussion, the entire diff against the merge base, and prior review threads and replies. Record the base and head revisions. Find related issues and PRs in all states, and inspect open PRs touching the same files for overlapping lines or behavior even when they do not link the issue. Distinguish released behavior, fixes already on main, and competing proposals. When proposals compete, record the issue reporter, original implementation author, maintainer direction, correctness, and distinct coverage. Recommend which proposal should survive and preserve carried-forward credit; submission order and green CI do not select the winner. Call a sound overlapping proposal redundant rather than spurious.