codefactor-mcp

Parse CodeFactor HTML

parse_codefactor_html

Extract normalized issues from CodeFactor HTML pages, with optional filtering by category, file path, and maximum issues.

Instructions

Parse a CodeFactor repository issues HTML response and return normalized issues.

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": {
      "html": "<html>"
    },
    "name": "parse_codefactor_html"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`html`	Yes	Raw HTML from a CodeFactor issues page.
`category`	No	Only include one CodeFactor category, for example Complexity.
`maxIssues`	No	Maximum number of issues returned.
`includeHidden`	No	Include hidden CodeFactor issues. Defaults to false.
`filePathIncludes`	No	Only include issues whose file path contains this text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only says 'parse and return normalized issues' without disclosing behavior like input validation, error handling, side effects, or output format details (e.g., what 'normalized' means).

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?

The description is a single sentence with 12 words, very concise. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., mentioning output or usage hint).

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits return value details, error scenarios, and how to effectively use optional filters like category or filePathIncludes. Inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how parameters like category affect output or the relationship between input and output.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Parse') and resource ('CodeFactor repository issues HTML response'), with a specific output ('return normalized issues'). It distinguishes from siblings like fetch_codefactor_issues (fetching) and summarize_codefactor_issues (summarizing).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after fetch_codefactor_issues, before summarize_codefactor_issues). No explicit context or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server