Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
covera-mcp

covera-mcp

Official
by SuresoftTechnologies
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Plan a server change

covera_recovery_publish_plan

Generate a server change plan for a verified case by reading the COVER server, then return a plan_digest to pass to the publish step.

Instructions

Produce a server change plan for a verified case; reads the COVER server only. Returns a plan_digest to pass to covera_recovery_publish. 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": {
      "server": "<server>",
      "case": "<case>",
      "hardwareId": "<hardwareId>",
      "wrapper": "<wrapper>"
    },
    "name": "covera_recovery_publish_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
caseYesAbsolute path of the case directory (required).
serverYesCOVER server root URL (required).
wrapperYesWrapper name to connect (required).
verifyTlsNoVerify the HTTPS certificate (skipped by default).
hardwareIdYesBuild Agent HardwareID (required).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: it clarifies the tool only reads from the COVER server, requires a verified case, and needs COVER_ACCESS_KEY or cached credentials for auth. It does not say where the plan is written or whether planning is cheap/repeatable given the idempotentHint=false annotation, leaving a small gap.

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 compact sentences, with the core action stated first followed by the return-value handoff and auth requirement. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return value (plan_digest) and the auth requirement, which are the two things an agent most needs. It is slightly thin on failure behavior and on what the plan artifact contains, but is adequate for a five-parameter planning tool.

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 parameter is already documented in the input schema; the description only reinforces the 'case' prerequisite and the read-only nature of 'server'. No additional syntax, defaults, or constraints (e.g. the TLS default) are added beyond what the schema already carries.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and artifact ('produce a server change plan') plus the scope constraint ('reads the COVER server only'), which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling covera_recovery_publish that applies the plan. The handoff sentence naming plan_digest and covera_recovery_publish makes the pairing unambiguous.

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?

Sets a clear precondition ('for a verified case') and names the explicit next step ('pass to covera_recovery_publish'), which implicitly tells the agent not to jump straight to publishing. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming the verification tool that must precede it, so the routing is inferred rather than spelled out.

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