statica-mcp

Official

by SuresoftTechnologies

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Exclude paths from analysis

statica_scope_exclude

Idempotent

Exclude specified files or directories from STATIC analysis by adding exact, non-glob paths to the current exclusion list.

Instructions

Exclude files or directories from analysis. Adds to the current list. Real paths only (no globs); if any path is missing nothing is written (NO_SUCH_PATH). Headers cannot be excluded (NOT_ANALYZABLE). Defects already on the server stay until the next full analysis; when reporting later counts, say they changed because the scope changed, not the code. Confirm the exact paths 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>",
      "paths": "<paths>"
    },
    "name": "statica_scope_exclude"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paths`	Yes	Paths relative to the project or absolute. File or directory is detected from disk.
`projectDir`	Yes	Absolute path of the project directory being analyzed (usually the session's working directory).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

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 atomicity ('if any path is missing nothing is written (NO_SUCH_PATH)'), a rejected-input class (headers, NOT_ANALYZABLE), and a non-obvious side effect (stale defects remain until the next full analysis, with reporting guidance). The annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so this added error and side-effect detail is the value here.

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-loaded with purpose and additive behavior, then error modes, then side effects, then the confirmation rule. Dense but each clause carries information; the reporting-caveat sentence is the only part that borders on extraneous operational advice.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, atomicity, failure codes, a prohibited input class, and the downstream consequence of the change. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to explain results afterward.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents relative/absolute paths and on-disk file-vs-directory detection. The description adds one genuinely useful constraint ('Real paths only (no globs)') but nothing about projectDir beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('Exclude files or directories from analysis') and clarifies the additive semantics ('Adds to the current list'), which distinguishes it from a replace-style operation. It does not explicitly name statica_scope_include as the counterpart, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives a real usage rule ('Confirm the exact paths with the user first') and a precondition ('Real paths only (no globs)'), which implies when the tool applies. However, it never states when to use this versus statica_scope_include or statica_scope_skip_module, so the agent must infer the alternative from the verb alone.

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