community-sonarcloud-mcp-server

list_rule_repositories

Retrieve SonarCloud rule repositories filtered by language or search query to determine which coding rules apply to your projects.

Instructions

List rule repositories

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": "list_rule_repositories"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No	Search query
`language`	No	Language key to filter by

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the operation type ('List') without explaining filtering behavior, pagination, return format, or access requirements. This is a notable gap for a tool with no structured behavioral metadata.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient and direct, though it sacrifices informational richness for brevity.

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?

Despite the low complexity, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what rule repositories are, what the output contains, or how the optional 'q' and 'language' parameters affect the results. An agent would need to inspect the schema to infer filtering behavior, but even then output semantics remain 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema is sufficient.

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 'List rule repositories' states a specific verb and resource, making it clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'show_rule' or 'list_languages', but the resource is distinct enough that purpose is unambiguous.

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 alternatives. There are no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose between this and sibling list tools.

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

Deploy Server