Apply a recorded SonarQube fix proposal serially and run bound checks to verify each change, ensuring technical debt is resolved without skipping validation.
Serially apply a recorded proposal and run bound checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | ||
| state | Yes | ||
| execute | 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 disclosing side effects and operational behavior. It discloses that the operation is serial and that bound checks are run, but it does not say whether this mutates state, whether it is destructive or reversible, what 'apply' actually changes, or what happens when 'execute' is absent. For an integration tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 terse sentence with no filler; it front-loads the main action and sequencing. It could be called under-specified, but as far as conciseness and structure go, every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a one-line summary, though not for complete usage guidance.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. The agent is left guessing about what a 'recorded proposal' is, what 'state' and 'job' must contain, what 'execute' controls, and what the return behavior is. It gives the gist but not enough context for correct use.
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 the description does not explain 'job,' 'state,' or 'execute.' The description does not even hint at how the recorded proposal maps to the parameters. This leaves the agent without any parameter-level meaning beyond the bare names in the schema.
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 specific action and resource: 'Serially apply a recorded proposal' and adds the secondary action 'run bound checks.' This is clear enough to distinguish it from generic run/status siblings, though 'recorded proposal' is unexplained domain jargon. It is not a tautology and gives a real sense of what the tool does.
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?
The description provides no guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings like sonar_remedy_run, sonar_remedy_run_all, or sonar_remedy_slice. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned. The only hint is the adverb 'serially,' which is not developed into usable decision guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.