Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SonarRemedy

SonarRemedy

by YeisonManco
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sonar_remedy_progress

Write a human-readable progress file to log the status of SonarQube technical debt fixes, ensuring transparent tracking of recovery steps.

Instructions

Write a human-readable progress file.

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": {
      "state": "<state>"
    },
    "name": "sonar_remedy_progress"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does 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. 'Write' implies a file mutation, but the description does not state side effects, file location, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or return value. 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.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It does not earn its brevity because it omits essential usage and parameter information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented required parameter, the description leaves virtually everything to the agent's imagination. It does not specify the file's purpose, content format, or integration with the other sonar_remedy tools.

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 schema describes a single required 'state' string with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention 'state' at all. The description adds no meaning to the parameter, so the agent cannot infer what value to supply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb ('Write') and a resource ('a human-readable progress file'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, it lacks specificity: it does not say what kind of progress file, where it is written, or how it relates to the sibling sonar_remedy_* tools, leaving the agent uncertain about its exact scope.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 versus the many siblings (fetch, status, run, etc.). No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned, so an agent has no basis for choosing this tool.

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