Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
statica-mcp

statica-mcp

Official
by SuresoftTechnologies
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Analyze and upload to the server

statica_upload

Analyzes an entire project and publishes the results to the STATIC server as a new team-visible revision; call only when the user explicitly requests an upload or publish.

Instructions

Analyze the whole project and upload the result to the STATIC server as a new revision the whole team sees. Holds a licence slot and takes time. Call ONLY when the user explicitly asks to upload or publish results to the server; never as a follow-up to pre-analyze, a scope change or NO_CHANGES. returncode 113: the project is already being analyzed; 114: licence limit reached - ask the user to retry later. If ok is false, do not say the upload happened.

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_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
parallelNoAnalyzer parallelism. Omit for the default.
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing cost and concurrency behavior (holds a licence slot, takes time), the shared-visibility effect of a new revision, and specific failure codes 113 (already analyzing) and 114 (licence limit) with a recovery action. It also warns not to claim success when ok is false. The only gap is it never says what a successful return contains beyond the implied ok flag, though annotations already mark the call as non-idempotent and open-world.

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 its cost, then the gating rule, then error handling — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The error-code and ok-flag clauses are dense and run together, which slightly hurts scanability but every clause carries real information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by explaining the ok flag and the meaning of returncodes 113 and 114, plus the licence/concurrency cost. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how to report the outcome.

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 projectDir (absolute path, usually the working directory) and parallel (analyzer parallelism, omit for default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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 specific compound action (analyze the whole project, then upload the result as a new server revision visible to the team) with a named target (STATIC server). This clearly separates it from statica_pre_analyze, which by contrast only analyzes locally.

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 an explicit gating rule ('Call ONLY when the user explicitly asks to upload or publish') and lists concrete non-triggers: follow-up to pre-analyze, scope change, NO_CHANGES. The agent has both when-to-use and when-not-to-use without inferring anything.

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