Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
covera-mcp

covera-mcp

Official
by SuresoftTechnologies
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Look up module coverage

covera_coverage_measure
Read-only

Read a module's coverage results from the COVER server, including summary and optional per-file and per-function detail, without running builds or changing anything.

Instructions

Read a module's coverage results from the COVER server: the module summary, and optionally per-file and per-function detail. Read-only; runs nothing and changes nothing. Give exactly one of a module name (a filename or path suffix to search for) or a 24-hex module id. The server URL and Access Key come from the Local Agent's cached Open API credentials; set CODESCROLL_TM_INSTALL_PATH if they are not found (see covera_doctor).

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": "covera_coverage_measure"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoRows per detail page (1-2000, default 100).
detailsNoInclude per-file and per-function coverage, not just the module summary.
maxPagesNoMaximum detail pages to read (default 1000).
moduleIdNo24-hex build module id (not a symbolicmoduleid URL).
serverUrlNoCOVER Open API main web server URL; defaults to the cached one.
verifyTlsNoVerify the HTTPS certificate and hostname (skipped by default).
moduleNameNoFull filename or path suffix of the module to find. The server may return several candidates.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and 'Read-only; runs nothing and changes nothing' largely restates it. The genuinely additive details are the credential sourcing (cached Open API credentials, CODESCROLL_TM_INSTALL_PATH fallback) and the warning that a name lookup may return several candidates. With annotations in place, this is useful but not rich.

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 purpose before constraints and then credentials, with no filler. The final sentence is dense with the env-var name and parenthetical tool reference, but every clause carries actionable information.

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 a seven-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description states what comes back (summary vs. per-file/per-function detail) and covers authentication and failure recovery. Pagination is left to the schema's limit and maxPages descriptions, which is acceptable at 100% coverage, though the ambiguity of a multi-candidate name lookup is only flagged, not resolved.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema cannot express: exactly one of moduleName or moduleId (required is empty, so nothing enforces this). It also clarifies moduleName is a filename or path suffix used as a search, which shapes how an agent chooses between the two identifiers.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ('Read a module's coverage results from the COVER server') and specifies the granularity levels available (module summary, optionally per-file and per-function). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling covera_coverage_build, so the distinction is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It establishes the retrieval context clearly and adds operational guidance: exactly one identifier must be supplied, and credential/env-var troubleshooting points to covera_doctor. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative tool for building coverage.

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