Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
smart-coding-mcp

smart-coding-mcp

by cbuntingde
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

analyze_path

Run deterministic static checks on code files. Filter results by risk, style, or debt, and receive a Markdown report with detailed findings.

Instructions

Run deterministic static checks. Returns Markdown report + raw findings list.

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": "analyze_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoPath to a file or directory (absolute, or relative to the current working dir). Defaults to the project root.
focusNoFilter: 'risk' hides pure-style (lines/format), 'style' keeps style only, 'debt' keeps debt+style+risk, 'all' keeps everything.all
max_filesNoHard ceiling on files scanned.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is 'deterministic' and returns a report, implying no side effects, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as read/write nature, required permissions, or potential resource usage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has three optional parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not elaborate on what 'static checks' entails or how the report is structured, which could be important for an AI agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema for the three parameters (path, focus, max_files).

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 clearly states the tool runs 'deterministic static checks' and returns a Markdown report plus raw findings. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'lint_check' and 'by_category', though it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lint_check' or 'health_check'. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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