Carrick

Read the findings list on main

get_findings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the findings list on main: type mismatches between endpoints and their callers, and groups of functions that look like copies of each other, built after each scan of main. Each row carries every place as file and line, what to check, and the call that drills into it. get_project_map shows the first rows under FOUND ON MAIN; this tool lists them all, paged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_findings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	One kind of finding: "type_mismatch" or "similar_functions". Omit for every kind.
`repo`	No	Your repo as owner/repo (git remote) or just the repo name. Resolves which Carrick project to query.
`limit`	No	Findings per page (default 20, max 100). A page is cut to what one response holds.
`offset`	No	Findings to skip (default 0). Pass the offset the previous page's last line names to continue.
`status`	No	"open" (default) for the findings on main now, "fixed" for the ones a later scan of main no longer found.
`project`	No	Carrick project slug to query. Omit to auto-resolve via `repo`, or omit both when the workspace has one project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 2, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / kind

Added value: +{
+  "description": "One kind of finding: \"type_mismatch\" or \"similar_functions\". Omit for every kind.",
+  "enum": [
+    "type_mismatch",
+    "similar_functions"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedOct 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are built after each scan of main, each row carries every location as file and line plus 'what to check', and results are paged. It does not explain page-size fallback behavior beyond what the schema says.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, then the row shape, then the sibling comparison. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the only mild waste is restating the title in the opening clause.

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 no output schema, the description usefully sketches the row shape (file and line locations, what to check, the call that drills in) and explains pagination, which is what an agent needs to consume results. Minor gap: it does not say what happens when no scan has run or how repo/project resolution errors surface.

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%, so the schema already documents kind, repo, limit, offset, status and project in detail. The description only adds the notion of paging and 'main'-scoped findings, which lightly reinforces status/offset semantics but does not extend parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the findings list on main') and immediately defines the two finding kinds it returns: type mismatches between endpoints and callers, and groups of functions that look like copies. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_project_map, so an agent can choose between them without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: get_project_map shows only the first rows under FOUND ON MAIN, while this tool 'lists them all, paged' – a clear condition for selecting this tool over the sibling. It lacks any explicit when-not guidance or note on when a different sibling (e.g. find_similar) would be preferable.

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

All Carrick 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.