Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
covera-mcp

covera-mcp

Official
by SuresoftTechnologies
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Verify a recovery candidate

covera_recovery_verify

Runs server-side PA verification of an evidence-backed recovery candidate on COVER without permanent server changes, helping confirm a case fix before applying it.

Instructions

Run a server-side PA verification of an evidence-backed candidate for a case. Runs analysis on the COVER server but makes no permanent server change. 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": {
      "case": "<case>",
      "candidate": "<candidate>"
    },
    "name": "covera_recovery_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
caseYesAbsolute path of the case directory (required).
serverNoCOVER server root URL; defaults to the case's collection server.
timeoutNoStatus-poll wait in seconds (1-60); the server run continues regardless.
platformNoBuild PC OS; omit to let the server decide.
candidateYesAbsolute path of the candidate file (required).
verifyTlsNoVerify the HTTPS certificate (skipped by default).

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 declare readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully clarifies that analysis runs on the COVER server with no permanent server change. It also discloses the COVER_ACCESS_KEY or cached-credential requirement, adding context beyond annotations, though idempotency and return behavior remain unstated.

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?

Three short sentences with no waste: purpose, side-effect profile, and credential requirement are front-loaded in that order. Every sentence adds useful 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?

The definition covers the operation, safety profile, and authentication, but with no output schema it does not explain what a verification result contains or how status polling is reported. That is a meaningful gap for a verification tool whose main value is its outcome.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no further detail about parameter formats or interactions, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: run a server-side PA verification of an evidence-backed candidate for a case. It is clear enough to distinguish verification from collection, discovery, or publishing, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead.

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 implied by the phrase 'evidence-backed candidate' and the credential requirement, suggesting this runs after a candidate has been identified. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to covera_recovery_inspect or covera_recovery_publish.

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