Skip to main content
Glama
KunihiroS

claude-code-mcp

fix_code

Identify and resolve bugs or issues in your code using detailed issue descriptions for precise fixes and improved functionality.

Instructions

Fixes bugs or issues in the given code.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesCode to fix
issue_descriptionYesDescription of the issue

Implementation Reference

  • The execution handler for the 'fix_code' tool. It encodes the input code to base64, constructs a prompt with the issue description, invokes the Claude CLI using runClaudeCommand, and returns the fixed code output.
    case 'fix_code': {
      const { code, issue_description } = args;
      logger.debug(`Processing fix_code request, code length: ${code.length}`);
      const encodedCode = encodeText(truncateIfNeeded(code));
      logger.debug(`Code encoded to base64, length: ${encodedCode.length}`);
      const prompt = `You are super professional engineer. Please fix the following Base64 encoded code, addressing the issue described below:\n\nCode:\n${encodedCode}\n\nIssue description:\n${issue_description ?? 'No specific issue described.'}`;
      logger.debug('Calling Claude CLI with prompt');
      const output = await runClaudeCommand(['--print'], prompt);
      logger.debug(`Received response from Claude, length: ${output.length}`);
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: output }] };
    }
  • Tool definition in ListTools response, including name, description, and input schema for 'fix_code' which requires 'code' and 'issue_description'.
    {
      name: 'fix_code',
      description: 'Fixes bugs or issues in the given code.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          code: { type: 'string', description: 'Code to fix' },
          issue_description: { type: 'string', description: 'Description of the issue' }
        },
        required: ['code', 'issue_description']
      }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'fixes bugs or issues' but doesn't explain how it behaves—e.g., whether it modifies code in place, returns suggestions, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. This leaves critical operational details unclear for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Fixes bugs or issues in the given code.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the complexity of a code-fixing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, error handling, or how it interacts with siblings. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'code' and 'issue_description'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which applies here.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fixes bugs or issues in the given code.' It specifies the verb ('fixes') and resource ('bugs or issues in the given code'), making the intent understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_code' or 'review_code', which might have overlapping purposes, preventing a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to siblings such as 'edit_code' or 'test_code'. Without this context, an agent might struggle to select the appropriate tool for code-related tasks.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/KunihiroS/claude-code-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server