Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CRAP Score MCP

CRAP Score MCP

by paulboutin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

analyze_function_health

Inspect a function by repository-relative file path and symbol or line to return measured evidence and matching findings for complexity and coverage review.

Instructions

Inspect a symbol in an enabled language by repository-relative path and name or line. Returns measured evidence and matching findings.

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": {
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_function_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes
lineNo
symbolNo
projectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state that this is a read-only inspection, whether it triggers or reuses analysis, whether it needs an indexed repository, or what the 'enabled language' constraint means for failures. 'Inspect' hints at read-only but nothing is confirmed.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and locator scheme, with no filler. The second sentence is short but low-information, which is the only waste.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage across four parameters, the description leaves too much open: the meaning of 'health', the shape of 'measured evidence and matching findings', the role of 'project', and the preconditions for a symbol being found. A complex analysis tool needs more than two sentences here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it establishes that 'file' is a repository-relative path and that a symbol can be located by name OR by line, which is meaningful disambiguation. However, the fourth parameter 'project' is never mentioned, and its schema ('not': {}) is opaque, leaving a real gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Inspect' and resource 'a symbol' are specific, and the repository-relative-path locator is stated. But the description never explains what 'function health' actually is, and 'Returns measured evidence and matching findings' is jargon that doesn't tell an agent what it gets back or how this differs from siblings like get_repository_report or review_changes.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the sibling names whether to inspect a single symbol here versus scanning hotspots or reviewing changes elsewhere.

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