Explains why a SonarQube quality gate is red by returning its status, new-code period, and conditions, listing failing conditions first with ratings from A to E.
Explain why a quality gate is red: status, new-code period, and conditions with the failing ones first (ratings as A-E)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| branch | No | Branch name | |
| project | Yes | Project key | |
| pullRequest | No | Pull request id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's value is in disclosing the response shape: failing conditions ordered first and ratings rendered A-E. That is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though error and missing-gate behavior are unaddressed.
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?
A single dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the output facets following. Nothing is redundant, though the clause list is packed tightly enough to read as slightly cryptic.
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?
With no output schema and no title, the description does the needed work of sketching the return payload (status, new-code period, conditions, ratings). Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior rather than core invocation information.
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 description coverage is 100% for project, branch, and pullRequest, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about how branch/PR selection affects the gate result, leaving it at the baseline.
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?
States a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('quality gate'), plus the exact facets returned (status, new-code period, conditions). It is clearly distinct from siblings like sonarqube_issues or sonarqube_measures, though it never names them.
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?
'Explain why a quality gate is red' implies the triggering condition (a failing gate), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of how branch/pullRequest scoping changes the call, and no named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.