cdash-mcp

by cbyrohl

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

get_coverage_comparison

Compare code coverage across builds to detect regressions and identify files with reduced test coverage.

Instructions

Compare code coverage across builds for a project. Useful for detecting coverage regressions.

Args:
    project: CDash project name (e.g. "PublicDashboard").
    date: Optional date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to today.
    build_id: Optional build ID to get coverage for a specific build.
        Recommended: provide a build_id from the dashboard for reliable results.
        Without build_id, uses cross-build comparison (only works for Nightly builds).
    limit: Maximum number of files to return (default 50, max 200).
    offset: Number of files to skip (default 0). Use for pagination.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`project`	Yes
`build_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the with/without-build_id behavioral fork, the Nightly-only limitation, default date behavior, and pagination via limit/offset. It does not describe the output shape (delegated to the output schema) or edge-case/error behavior, so transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a compact, scannable Args block. Every line adds information—defaults, constraints, and behavioral notes—with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 5-parameter, 1-required tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, all parameters, defaults, constraints, and the conditional build_id behavior—enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor omissions, such as how date and build_id interact and edge-condition behavior, keep it just short of fully comprehensive.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates: project gets a concrete example ('PublicDashboard'), date gets a format and default, build_id gets a behavioral explanation plus recommendation, and limit/offset get meaning, defaults, a max cap, and a pagination hint. Every parameter is documented well beyond the bare schema titles.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The opening line 'Compare code coverage across builds for a project' pairs a specific verb with a specific resource and scope, and 'detecting coverage regressions' states the tool's purpose. No sibling tool covers code coverage, so the description differentiates it from the get_build_details/get_dashboard family by its cross-build focus.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear invocation context: 'Useful for detecting coverage regressions' and advises 'provide a build_id from the dashboard for reliable results,' including the constraint that cross-build comparison 'only works for Nightly builds.' It stops short of explicitly naming when to choose this tool over a sibling, so it doesn't reach the explicit-alternatives bar of a 5.

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

Deploy Server