SonarRemedy

sonar_remedy_fetch

Fetch SonarQube issues for a project into an export, chunking large result sets to stay within budget limits.

Instructions

Fetch Sonar issues for a project into an export (chunked if over budget).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sonar_remedy_fetch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	No
`output`	No
`project`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions chunking over budget, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it writes or modifies files, what side effects occur, or any auth/rate-limit concerns. The description is too sparse for safe invocation.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with the core action front-loaded. The parenthetical 'chunked if over budget' adds useful behavior, though the term 'budget' is ambiguous. No waste, but slight under-specification.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling family, the description is far too minimal. It omits parameter semantics, return behavior, side effects, and when to choose this tool over siblings, leaving significant gaps for correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has three parameters (repo, output, project) with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. 'For a project' hints at the project parameter, but repo and output are completely undefined, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct invocation.

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?

The description states a clear verb (Fetch), a resource (Sonar issues for a project), and an outcome (into an export), with a notable behavioral detail (chunked if over budget). It is distinct enough from sibling tools like sonar_remedy_run or sonar_remedy_status, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sonar_remedy_run, sonar_remedy_slice, or sonar_remedy_progress. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or the specific scenario where fetching into an export is preferred.

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

Deploy Server