Skip to main content
Glama
Matthieu-Pesnot-Pin

mcp-feature-analyzer

by Matthieu-Pesnot-Pin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_finding

Change fields of a code review finding, such as severity, title, body, or location. Updating location checks the diff and reopens outdated findings.

Instructions

Change the fields of one finding: severity, kind, title, body, location, suggestion or prompt. A new location is checked against the diff and reopens an outdated finding; path null removes the location. Whether a finding is ignored is the reviewer's decision and cannot be changed here.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoNew explanation.
kindNoissue or requirement_gap.
pathNoPath of a changed file of the analysis, relative to the repository root, as listed by get_diff. Give it with start_line to move the finding; null removes the location (requirement_gap only).
titleNoNew title.
promptNoPrompt to hand back to the agent for this finding, replacing the generated one (body, current lines, replacement) in the review feedback. null clears it.
end_lineNoLast targeted line, inclusive (default: start_line).
severityNoSeverity: critical, major, minor, trivial (from most to least serious).
finding_idYesId of the finding, as shown by get_analysis.
start_lineNoFirst targeted line. Line numbers are NEW-side numbers, as shown in the second column of get_diff.
suggestionNoReplacement text proposed for the targeted lines, kept verbatim (indentation included); an empty string proposes deleting them. Displayed to the reviewer only: nothing is written to the repository. Needs a location. null clears it.
analysis_idYesId of the analysis, as returned by create_analysis or list_analyses.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.13

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect that a new location reopens an outdated finding, the null-clears semantics, and that the ignored flag is immutable here. It does not state permission/auth requirements or failure behavior for invalid locations.

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 action and the field list, with side-effect caveats packed into the second sentence. Dense but no wasted filler.

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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important side effects (reopening, null removal, ignored immutability) that an agent cannot infer from the schema. Remaining gaps are minor.

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 every parameter including the null/removal semantics for path and prompt. The description's field enumeration largely restates what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Change the fields of one finding') plus the exact field set (severity, kind, title, body, location, suggestion, prompt), so an agent can distinguish it from update_explanation or add_findings. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, which keeps 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete usage conditions: a new location is validated against the diff, path null removes the location (requirement_gap only), and ignored status cannot be changed here — a clear exclusion that routes the agent elsewhere. It stops short of naming which alternative tool handles the excluded case.

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