Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Skill Quality MCP

Skill Quality MCP

by LoveMuZiLi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sonar_issues

Read-only

Fetch unresolved SonarQube issues filtered by project, issue type, and severity to triage bugs, vulnerabilities, and code smells.

Instructions

拉取 SonarQube 未解决问题。types：BUG,VULNERABILITY,CODE_SMELL；severities：BLOCKER..INFO，空为全部； project_key 空则用 SONAR_PROJECT_KEY。

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": "sonar_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
typesNoBUG,VULNERABILITY
detailNo
severitiesNo
project_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the unresolved-only scope and the SONAR_PROJECT_KEY fallback, but says nothing about pagination, the limit cap, or what 'detail' changes.

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?

Three short clauses with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and each clause carries parameter semantics rather than restating the schema.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema exists and five parameters are undocumented in the schema, yet the description covers only three of them. An agent can call it, but cannot reason about result volume (limit) or output shape (detail).

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does document valid values for types, the severities range and the 'empty means all' default, and the project_key fallback, but leaves the limit and detail parameters entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetching unresolved SonarQube issues, which is distinct from siblings like sonar_project_metrics or sonar_run_scan. It does not explicitly name a sibling it should be preferred over, keeping it short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word '未解决' (unresolved); there is no statement of when to choose this over full_quality_report or sonar_project_metrics, nor any prerequisites beyond the env-var fallback.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools