Skip to main content
Glama
dozzman

SonarCloud MCP Server

by dozzman
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one fetches issues, the other provides a summary. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent 'verb_noun' naming pattern (fetch_sonarcloud_issues, summarize_sonarcloud_issues), making the naming predictable and clear.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin. While it may serve a narrow purpose, the tool count is at the borderline of being insufficient for a typical server scope.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover fetching and summarizing issues for a PR, but are missing operations like retrieving details for a single issue or listing all issues for a project. The surface is notably incomplete for broader SonarCloud operations.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, required authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (though the schema includes p and ps), or what happens when no criteria are specified. The description is too sparse to inform the AI about critical runtime behavior.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is a single sentence, which is concise but omits essential information for a tool with 33 parameters. It is not front-loaded with the most important usage details. While every word is justified, the overall structure fails to earn its place due to under-specification.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    The tool has a complex input schema with 33 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers one use case (pull request) and does not mention common filtering patterns, response structure, or limitations. It is not adequate for an AI to understand the full scope and proper invocation of the tool.

    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?

    With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not highlight that 'pullRequest' is a key parameter or explain how it interacts with other filters. The schema itself is well-documented, so the description adds no extra semantic value.

    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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource 'SonarCloud issues' with a qualifier 'for a specific pull request'. However, this is overly narrow because the tool supports filtering by many other criteria (branch, componentKeys, etc.), not only pull requests. The purpose is clear but misleadingly constrained.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'summarize_sonarcloud_issues'. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or context-dependent preferences. The lack of usage direction forces the AI to infer from the schema alone.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations. Description does not disclose whether the tool modifies state, requires authentication beyond token (optional in schema), or any side effects.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    Single sentence, front-loaded, no redundant information. Efficient but perhaps too brief for a 5-param tool.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Description lacks details about the output format, what 'high-level summary' means, and any prerequisites. Despite full schema coverage, the return value and usage constraints are unclear.

    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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning for any parameter.

    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 description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'high-level summary of SonarCloud issues', and the scope 'for a PR', distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'fetch_sonarcloud_issues'.

    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 on when to use this summary tool vs the sibling 'fetch_sonarcloud_issues'. Lacks explicit conditions or exclusions.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

sonarcloud-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

sonarcloud-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dozzman/sonarcloud-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server