statica-mcp

Official

by SuresoftTechnologies

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Create STATIC workspace and wrapper

statica_bootstrap_begin

Destructive

Begins a STATIC project connection: verifies the compiler, creates the workspace, and for C/C++ creates a compiler wrapper for the build; Java/Kotlin also create the server project.

Instructions

Start connecting a project: verify the compiler by running it, then create the STATIC workspace and (C/C++) the compiler wrapper whose wrapperDir the build must be pointed at. Java and Kotlin also create the server project here. Does not edit project files. BEFORE CALLING: read statica_get_guide topic=bootstrap and get the user's approval for the whole connection - it later edits project build settings, runs a full build and creates a project on the shared server. C/C++ needs ide, compiler and compilerPath; other languages pass language and none of those. stage=existing-workspace means a workspace already exists: resume it (bootstrapping) or stop (ready), never start a second one.

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": {
      "projectDir": "<projectDir>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "statica_bootstrap_begin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ide`	No	C/C++ only: forge ide value from the environments guide.
`name`	Yes	Workspace name; becomes the server project key. Alphanumerics, at least 3 after dropping leading digits.
`input`	No	C# only: absolute path of the .sln or .csproj to analyze.
`compiler`	No	C/C++ only: forge compiler value from the environments guide.
`language`	No	Project language. Default ccpp (C/C++).
`projectDir`	Yes	Absolute path of the project directory being analyzed (usually the session's working directory).
`buildCommand`	No	Build command, if the build is not GUI-only. Omit rather than passing an empty string.
`compilerPath`	No	C/C++ only: absolute path of the original compiler executable. Never guess it.
`csharpTarget`	No	C# only: sdk for .NET 5+ / SDK-style projects, else framework (default).
`csharpConfiguration`	No	C# only: build configuration such as Debug or Release.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by naming the downstream side effects that require consent: editing project build settings, running a full build, and creating a project on the shared server. The "Does not edit project files" scope note plus the stage=existing-workspace guard add genuine behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

The opening sentence front-loads the action and the rest is organized as prerequisites, per-language requirements, and the existing-workspace case. It is dense and slightly long, but nearly every clause carries actionable information; only the parenthetical about wrapperDir could be trimmed.

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 10-parameter orchestration tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, consent, per-language branches, and the pre-existing-workspace case. The main gap is that it never says what the call returns (workspace identifier, wrapperDir value, detected stage), which an agent needs to proceed to the next step.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds conditional semantics the schema does not encode: which parameters are mandatory for C/C++ versus other languages, and that the wrapper's wrapperDir must be used to point the build. It still leaves some parameters (buildCommand, input, csharpTarget) to the schema alone.

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 concrete sequence of verbs and resources: verify the compiler, create the STATIC workspace, and create the C/C++ compiler wrapper (plus the server project for Java/Kotlin). It also explicitly scopes out behavior ("Does not edit project files"), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like statica_bootstrap_verify or statica_bootstrap_finish.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit preconditions (read statica_get_guide topic=bootstrap, obtain user approval) and explains why the approval is needed. It also provides per-language selection rules (C/C++ requires ide, compiler, compilerPath; other languages pass language only) and tells the agent what to do when stage=existing-workspace: resume or stop, never start a second workspace.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.