Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
covera-mcp

covera-mcp

Official
by SuresoftTechnologies
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Collect error material from the server

covera_recovery_collect

Download PA analysis-error material via Open API into a new ZIP and start a recovery case; requires COVER_ACCESS_KEY or cached credentials.

Instructions

Download the latest PA analysis-error material over the Open API into a new ZIP and start the case. Needs COVER_ACCESS_KEY or cached credentials.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>",
      "archive": "<archive>",
      "runDir": "<runDir>"
    },
    "name": "covera_recovery_collect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runDirYesAbsolute path of the new run directory (required).
serverNoCOVER server root URL for this recovery.
sourceYesSource identifier of the analysis error (required).
archiveYesAbsolute path for the new error ZIP (required).
agentRootNoAbsolute path of the COVER EE Local Agent install folder, if it should override the environment.
verifyTlsNoVerify the HTTPS certificate and hostname. Omitted, TLS verification is skipped (the default on internal COVER servers with self-signed certificates).
hardwareIdNoBuild Agent HardwareID; omit to read it from the build account file.
serverRootNoAbsolute path of a local COVER server install folder or catalina.home.
projectRootNoAbsolute path of the build working directory where the analysis-error command ran.
searchRootsNoExtra folders or ZIP files to search; repeatable.
hardwareFileNoAbsolute path of the build account's HardwareID file.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotence, and the description adds real context on top: the transfer happens over the Open API and requires COVER_ACCESS_KEY or cached credentials. It stops short of saying what 'start the case' does to existing state or whether a partial download leaves an artifact behind, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the credential prerequisite appended where it is immediately visible. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and filesystem side effects, the description covers the trigger and auth requirement but leaves 'start the case' undefined and says nothing about what is created or returned beyond a new ZIP. It is adequate but not complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 every one of the 11 parameters (including the TLS-verification default and hardwareId fallback) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the burden.

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 names a specific verb and resource: downloading PA analysis-error material over the Open API into a new ZIP, then starting the case. It is clear what the tool accomplishes, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as covera_recovery_discover or covera_recovery_start, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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: the mention of credentials suggests this is the entry point that gathers material before other recovery steps, and the auth prerequisite ('Needs COVER_ACCESS_KEY or cached credentials') is genuinely useful. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over covera_recovery_discover or covera_recovery_inspect, and no when-not guidance.

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