SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Codecov code coverage totals for a public GitHub

dev_codecov_stats

Read-only

Codecov code coverage totals for a public GitHub repository: coverage percentage, lines hit and missed, files, branches and the branch Codecov tracks. Public repos only; per-file detail is not included. Related tools on this server, for a different need: dev_blockchair_multichain_stats when you need Blockchair chain statistics for one blockchain: block; dev_gmx_arbitrum_stats when you need GMX total value locked on Arbitrum in USD from DefiLlama's. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "dev_codecov_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	GitHub repository name, e.g. codecov-action
`owner`	Yes	GitHub owner (user or org), e.g. codecov

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	No
`files`	No
`owner`	No
`branch`	No
`source`	No
`private`	No
`branches`	No
`language`	No
`linesHit`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`linesTotal`	No
`linesMissed`	No
`coveragePercent`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: the public-repo restriction and, importantly, the pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failed calls not charged), which materially affects whether an agent should invoke it. It stops short of describing rate limits or freshness of the coverage data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core sentence is front-loaded and tight, and the pricing note is worth its space. The 'Related tools on this server' sentence is the weak point: it spends roughly a third of the description on two crypto-data tools with no plausible overlap with Codecov coverage, which is noise for the agent reading it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the two-parameter schema is fully documented. Between the annotations, the public-repo constraint, and the pricing disclosure, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the irrelevant sibling references and missing data-freshness note keep it out of the top band.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (owner, repo) carry examples in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter format, case sensitivity, or how owner/repo combine into the Codecov slug, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (Codecov code coverage totals for a public GitHub repository) and enumerates exactly what comes back: coverage percentage, lines hit and missed, files, branches, and the tracked branch. It also brackets scope with 'Public repos only' and 'per-file detail is not included', so an agent can tell what it will and won't get without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There are explicit exclusions ('Public repos only', 'per-file detail is not included') that route an agent away from this tool for private repos or file-level questions. However, the two alternatives it points to (dev_blockchair_multichain_stats, dev_gmx_arbitrum_stats) are unrelated crypto tools, so it never names the correct fallback for file-level coverage or private repositories.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?