io.github.neogeweb3/code-health-suite

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_bug_score

Assess code quality by scanning a directory to produce a bug detection score, grade, bug profile classification, and breakdown by rule and severity.

Instructions

Get a bug detection health score (0-100) with grade (A-F), bug profile classification (clean/fstring_heavy/closure_heavy/etc.), and breakdown by rule and severity. Quick bug health check.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "get_bug_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Directory path to scan.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.1Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It details the return components (score, grade, classification, breakdown) but omits any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., file permissions), or limitations like whether the scan is recursive. It is informative but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences front-load the primary purpose and enumerate the key outputs without any filler. The structure is highly efficient and focused.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given there is no output schema, the description does enumerate the major return elements (score, grade, classification, breakdown). However, it lacks explanation of grading criteria or the meaning of 'bug profile' categories, which may be ambiguous. It is adequate for a quick health check but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The only parameter 'path' is described in the schema as 'Directory path to scan.' The description adds no additional context about path format, validation, or expected behavior. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves a 'bug detection health score' with specific output components (grade, classification, breakdown). It distinguishes itself from sibling score tools like get_complexity_score and get_security_score by focusing on bug detection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides minimal usage context with the phrase 'Quick bug health check,' implying a fast assessment. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like detect_bugs or other score tools, nor any exclusions.

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