Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
statica-mcp

statica-mcp

Official
by SuresoftTechnologies
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Set automatic report generation

statica_report_generator_set
DestructiveIdempotent

Enable or disable automatic report generation after each analysis; when enabling, specify the report format and at least one kind (1-12) for the server project.

Instructions

Turn automatic report generation after each analysis on or off. Turning it on needs a format and at least one kind (1-12). Applies to everyone using the server project; confirm with the user first.

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>",
      "enabled": "<enabled>"
    },
    "name": "statica_report_generator_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindsNoReport kinds 1-12.
formatNoReport format.
enabledYestrue to turn it on, false to turn it off.
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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add context. It does: it discloses that the change 'applies to everyone using the server project' (global blast radius, not per-user) and mandates user confirmation, both of which are beyond what the annotations convey. It stops short of saying whether existing reports are affected or what the response looks like.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by the enabling precondition and then the scope/safety warning. No filler and nothing buried.

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 destructive, server-wide toggle with no output schema, the definition covers the action, the conditional parameter requirement, the blast radius, and the confirmation step. Only the return/confirmation behavior after the call is unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the annotations.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds a genuine cross-parameter rule the schema cannot express: enabling requires a format and at least one kind. That conditional dependency is real added meaning. The '(1-12)' range merely repeats the schema's minimum/maximum.

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?

States a specific verb pair (turn on/off) against a specific resource (automatic report generation after each analysis), which is more precise than the title alone. It is distinguishable from the read-side sibling statica_report_generator_show by the explicit on/off framing, but it never names that sibling, leaving differentiation implicit.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('after each analysis', toggling on or off) plus an explicit operational instruction: 'confirm with the user first.' It does not name the alternative tool for inspecting current settings, so the agent must infer where to check state before toggling.

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