Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
statica-mcp

statica-mcp

Official
by SuresoftTechnologies
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Show code metrics

statica_metric_show
Read-only

Displays which code metrics are enabled for a server project without changing configuration, so you can verify active metrics before analysis.

Instructions

Show which code metrics the server project enables. Changes nothing.

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": "statica_metric_show"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectDirYesAbsolute path of the project directory being analyzed (usually the session's working directory).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so "Changes nothing" largely restates structured data. The one genuinely additive detail is that the metrics reported are those the server project enables, indicating the source of truth, but nothing is said about response shape or freshness.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the read-only reassurance placed after the core purpose. 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.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and safety covered by annotations, the description says enough to call it correctly. Only the shape of the returned metric list is unstated, which is minor.

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% and the single parameter projectDir is fully documented in the schema as an absolute path. The description adds no further meaning about that parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Show which code metrics the server project enables" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource, and "Changes nothing" separates it from the sibling setter statica_metric_set. The agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Use is implied: inspect the currently enabled metrics, presumably before calling statica_metric_set. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the routing logic is left to inference.

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