GPA Backend Test Analyst MCP

task_analyze_full_coverage

Analyze complete test coverage for a backend service, tracking real-time progress and comparing against a target percentage.

Instructions

Análise completa de cobertura com progresso em tempo real.

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": {
      "service_name": "<service_name>",
      "coverage_report": "<coverage_report>"
    },
    "name": "task_analyze_full_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`service_name`	Yes	Nome do serviço
`coverage_report`	Yes	Relatório de cobertura
`target_coverage`	No	Meta de cobertura em %

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.0.0Jun 24, 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 full burden. It mentions real-time progress but does not disclose behavioral traits like destructiveness, read-only, auth requirements, or side effects. The description provides minimal behavioral insight.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, it is in Portuguese and could include more specifics without significant length increase.

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?

Lacks explanation of return values, pagination, or behavior (real-time progress not elaborated). With no output schema and minimal description, completeness is low for an analysis tool.

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 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the resource ('coverage') and action ('analyze'), and adds real-time progress. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_test_coverage' or 'task_analyze_coverage_async'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or context provided. The description only states what it does.

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