Bind approved check commands to the current target snapshot, preventing unauthorized execution. Optionally execute with SHA-256 approval for verified remediation.
Bind reviewed check commands and the current target snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | ||
| checks | Yes | ||
| execute | No | ||
| approve_checks_sha256 | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the action and does not state whether binding mutates state, requires approval, is reversible, or affects later run/schedule operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the action. Its brevity is structurally appropriate, even though it sacrifices other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter configuration tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, a one-line purpose is not enough. Missing context includes the meaning of required state and checks, the role of execute, the purpose of approve_checks_sha256, and how this differs from configure_project.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and all four parameters are undocumented. The description loosely maps 'reviewed check commands' to checks and 'current target snapshot' to state, but it does not explain execute or approve_checks_sha256, nor does it provide value formats or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a real action ('Bind') and names the resources involved ('reviewed check commands' and 'current target snapshot'), so it is not a tautology. However, the phrasing is jargon-heavy and does not distinguish this tool from the sibling sonar_remedy_configure_project or other remedy tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites must exist before binding, or which alternative sibling tools should be used instead. An agent must infer the intended workflow from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.