coverage-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| coverage_checkA | 跑指定测试类并按类卡分支覆盖率，返回测试结果 / 覆盖率 / 未覆盖分支行。 Args: module_dir: 模块目录（含 pom.xml） tests: 测试类，逗号分隔（可带或不带 .java）；给了 package 可留空 cover: 卡覆盖率的业务类，逗号分隔；空=ALL 汇总 min_branch: 最小分支覆盖率，支持 80 或 0.8 compile_first: True=含增量编译，保证测最新代码（默认）；False=跳过编译，代码已编译时更快 reuse_forks: True=多测试类复用同一 fork JVM（默认，快得多）；False=每类独立 JVM（严格隔离） package: 业务包（如 fanya/schedule）；给了就自动收集该包全部测试类+业务类，tests/cover 可留空 |
| compile_projectA | 编译目标并返回每个 Maven 步骤的状态与日志路径，三级回退自动识别入参。 Args: project_name: 注册项目名（全名/短名，如 fanyajwproject-course-v2 或 course-v2）， 或含 pom.xml 的目录路径（相对/绝对/嵌套/双层同名均可，相对优先）。 未注册的目录按 path 策略 clean+compile。 workspace_root: 工作区根目录；空则优先从当前目录或 coverage-mcp 父目录推导 strategy: 可选策略覆盖：default/top-level/shared-jar/rpc |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: compile_project handles Maven compilation with fallback strategies, while coverage_check runs tests and evaluates branch coverage. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: compile_project and coverage_check. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal. While the tools themselves are substantial and cover core compilation and testing, the count is at the low end of typical MCP servers.
The server lacks essential features for a complete coverage workflow, such as listing projects, retrieving historical coverage data, or managing configurations. Agents must re-run checks to get results, limiting usability.