fix(mcp): align read report tools with requireRepoAccess

[jsdevninja]

Summary

• Closes getMaintainerNoise/getAmsMinerCohort/getActivationPreview use a stricter MCP gate than their documented REST mirror #8338: getMaintainerNoise, getAmsMinerCohort, and getActivationPreview use requireRepoAccess (matching REST requireRepoMaintainer and sibling read tools), not live-write requireRepoApprovalQueueAccess.
• Updates mcp-output-schemas member-deny assertions to the requireRepoAccess error string (the mismatch failed CI shard 3 on fix(mcp): align read report tools with requireRepoAccess #8375 and left Codecov patch at 0%).
• In-process regression: cached maintainer/owner succeeds when live collaborator lookup fails; non-maintainers still denied.

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves (e.g. Closes #123) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage locally; codecov/patch requires ≥99% coverage of the lines AND branches you changed (aim for 100% on your diff so CI variance does not fail near the threshold). Global coverage is a non-blocking trend with a loose 90% backstop, not the gate.
• npm run test:workers
• npm run build:mcp
• npm run test:mcp-pack
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npm run ui:lint
• npm run ui:typecheck
• npm run ui:build
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• Focused: mcp-read-report-gate-parity (3) + affected mcp-output-schemas cases (6) all green after the denial-message fix. Full unsharded test:coverage deferred to Linux CI; prior fix(mcp): align read report tools with requireRepoAccess #8375 failure was shard-3 test assertion mismatch, not missing handler coverage.

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots arranged as organized, captioned, clickable thumbnails. SVG screenshots are not used as review evidence. Review-only screenshots or recordings are not committed to the repository.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

UI Evidence

N/A — MCP auth gate alignment only.

Notes

• Replaces closed fix(mcp): align read report tools with requireRepoAccess #8375 (shard failure from stale maintainer access is required expectations).

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 89.92%. Comparing base (2ae66d6) to head (6670555).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8383      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.17%   89.92%   -2.26%     
==========================================
  Files         791       98     -693     
  Lines       79245    23855   -55390     
  Branches    23946     4091   -19855     
==========================================
- Hits        73044    21451   -51593     
+ Misses       5062     2200    -2862     
+ Partials     1139      204     -935     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	45.86% <0.00%> (-7.80%)	⬇️
shard-2	40.81% <100.00%> (-10.03%)	⬇️
shard-3	75.71% <100.00%> (+17.49%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/mcp/server.ts	96.60% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 693 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-24 11:23:08 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 98/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
The AI review returned non-blocking notes for this change but did not include a separate narrative summary. Review the nits below before deciding this PR.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• src/mcp/server.ts: verify requireRepoAccess's underlying scope check (canLoginAccessRepo) doesn't silently grant broader access than intended for these maintainer-report tools versus the old approval-queue gate, since the new tests only cover COLLABORATOR/owner and a no-scope 'rando' case.
• test/unit/mcp-output-schemas.test.ts: the denial-message assertions now check for the generic 'session cannot access this repository' substring, which is less specific than before — worth a comment noting this is intentional parity with sibling tools rather than a loosened assertion.
• Consider adding a MEMBER-with-installed-repo case (not just MEMBER-on-non-installed-repo) to mcp-read-report-gate-parity.test.ts to fully pin down the requireRepoAccess scope boundary for these three tools.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#8338, #8375
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (2 linked issues).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 210 registered-repo PR(s), 127 merged, 39 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	jsdevninja; Gittensor profile; 210 PR(s), 39 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff changes all three handlers to call requireRepoAccess instead of requireRepoApprovalQueueAccess, updates their inline comments to reflect the corrected gate and REST mirror, updates the stale denial-message assertions in mcp-output-schemas.test.ts, and adds a new in-process regression test file exercising cached-maintainer-pass and non-maintainer-reject cases for all three tools.

Review context

• Author: jsdevninja
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: JavaScript, Swift, C, CSS, MDX, Python, TypeScript, Vue
• Official Gittensor activity: 210 PR(s), 39 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.