Automate SonarQube debt recovery by fetching issues, slicing each chunk into its own queue, and optionally executing verified fixes.
Fetch + slice every chunk into its own queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | No | ||
| state | Yes | ||
| execute | No | ||
| project | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It hints that the tool queues chunks, but it does not explain whether this executes remediations, mutates state, requires prior setup, or has rate/ordering implications.
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 terse and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It leaves too much implicit for a tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions.
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 four parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and many closely named siblings, this description is far too thin. It does not explain what 'every chunk' means, how the parameters affect execution, or what the tool returns.
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 mentions none of the four parameters: repo, state, execute, project. The required state parameter is completely unexplained, so an agent cannot determine what value to provide.
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 names concrete operations ('Fetch + slice') and a scope ('every chunk'), so it is not a tautology. However, it does not identify the input resource (repo/project) or what 'chunk' refers to, and it does not clearly distinguish run_all from the related fetch/slice/run siblings.
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 about when to use this tool versus sonar_remedy_fetch, sonar_remedy_slice, sonar_remedy_run, or the other siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.