Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TaskBounty Check

TaskBounty Check

by eliottreich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

generate_fix_plan

Return a step-by-step fix plan for a given rule, using optional local repo context for accurate steps. User applies changes manually; tool never modifies files.

Instructions

Return a step-by-step fix plan as TEXT for a given rule (and optionally a local repo path for context). It NEVER modifies files; the user applies changes explicitly.

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": "generate_fix_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ruleNoRule id to plan a fix for.
pathNoOptional local repo path for context (read-only).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.6

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description explicitly states the tool does not modify files, which is a key behavioral trait. It also clarifies that the user applies changes manually, adding transparency beyond basic functionality.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, input, and behavior. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 simple tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and non-destructive behavior. It could be more complete by describing the format of the fix plan output, but overall it provides sufficient context.

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 the description adds little beyond the schemas for 'rule' and 'path'. It reiterates what the schema already provides without adding new semantic details or constraints.

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 tool returns a step-by-step fix plan as text for a given rule. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'explain_finding' and 'scan_repo' by focusing on generating a fix plan rather than explaining or scanning.

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 tool versus alternatives like 'explain_finding' or 'scan_repo'. The description only states the inputs without clarifying in which scenarios this tool is appropriate.

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