Show source lines around a specific component line reported by sonarqube_issues so you can inspect the code context of a finding.
Show the source lines around a line of a component, as returned by sonarqube_issues (component and line)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| line | Yes | Line to centre the snippet on | |
| component | Yes | Component key, e.g. my-project:src/index.ts | |
| contextLines | No | Lines of context either side (default 5) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that it retrieves surrounding source lines, but it does not add significant behavioral detail beyond that, such as permissions or response format.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to identifying the resource, the operation, or the source of the required parameters.
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?
For a simple read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the return shape more explicitly, but the core behavior is sufficiently clear.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents component, line, and contextLines. The description adds useful provenance by indicating that component and line values should come from sonarqube_issues output.
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 states a specific verb and resource: show source lines around a line of a component. It also distinguishes the tool from sonarqube_issues by tying the component and line values back to that sibling's output.
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?
It clearly implies the tool should be used after sonarqube_issues has provided a component and line. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name other alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.