Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
statica-mcp

statica-mcp

Official
by SuresoftTechnologies
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Generate and download a report

statica_report

Generates a report from the latest analysis revision, waits for completion, and downloads it in DOC, PDF, HTML, or Excel format to a chosen path or the project's default reports folder.

Instructions

Ask the server to generate a report from the latest revision, wait for it, and download it (default /.static/reports/). Can take minutes. Kinds: 1 project summary, 2 remaining defects, 3 suppressed defects, 4 by rule, 5 by ruleset, 6 by severity, 7 by file, 8 module metrics, 9 file metrics, 10 class metrics, 11 function metrics, 12 suppressed metrics. On failure 'stage' tells how far it got.

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>",
      "format": "<format>",
      "kinds": "<kinds>"
    },
    "name": "statica_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outNoWhere to save the file. An existing file there is replaced. Omit for the default location.
kindsYesReport kinds 1-12.
formatYesReport format.
timeoutNoSeconds to wait for generation (default 600).
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the tool blocks and polls internally, that runtime can be minutes, the default download directory, and that a failure response carries a 'stage' field showing progress. The overwrite behavior of an existing output file is left to the schema rather than surfaced here, which is a small gap for a non-idempotent tool.

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?

Front-loads the action and the blocking/latency warning before drowning in detail, then packs the kind mapping compactly into one line. The 1-12 enumeration is long but each entry carries distinct meaning, and the failure-stage note is a single useful sentence.

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 covers the important return aspects: where the file lands on success and how partial failure is reported via 'stage'. It stops short of describing what else the success payload contains (e.g., returned path or size), leaving a modest gap for a multi-minute operation.

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 real meaning the schema lacks: it decodes the twelve numeric kinds into named report types, which the schema only calls 'Report kinds 1-12'. It also restates the default output location, though the overwrite nuance stays in the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb chain (generate, wait, download) against a named resource (a report from the latest revision), so an agent knows exactly what the call produces. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling report_generator_set/show tools, which appear to configure rather than produce, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The implicit usage case (you want a report artifact) is clear from the purpose, and 'Can take minutes' signals it is a heavy, blocking call rather than a quick config change. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative, though the sibling set has no obvious substitute for producing a report.

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