Skip to main content
Glama
sebastienrousseau

pain001-mcp

by sebastienrousseau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get schema coverage report

get_corpus_coverage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check that an edition's coverage files reach every element path and choice branch of its XSD before trusting them to smoke a parser or mapping.

Instructions

Return the schema coverage verdict of one message type's coverage set.

Use this to check that the shipped coverage files reach every element
path and choice branch of an edition's XSD before relying on them to
smoke a parser or a mapping.

Delegates to :func:`pain001.corpus.coverage_report`.

Args:
    version: The message type.

Returns:
    The ``coverage.json`` content (path and branch counts and
    percentages, completeness, missing and exempt lists), or
    ``{"error": ...}`` when the edition has no set or there is no
    corpus.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionYesThe message type, e.g. 'pain.001.001.13'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.0.67

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. Description adds useful detail: it delegates to a specific function and returns coverage.json content with path/branch counts, percentages, completeness, missing/exempt lists, or an error when there is no set or corpus.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, delegation, Args, and Returns. The Args/Returns sections are somewhat redundant with structured data but appropriate for a docstring-style definition and not wasteful.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It does so clearly: coverage.json content or an error object, including the specific fields returned. Also explains the check's role in the workflow.

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% and already documents the 'version' parameter with an example. Description adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'The message type', so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb + resource: returns the schema coverage verdict of one message type's coverage set. Clearly distinguishes from corpus file listing/reading siblings by focusing on coverage report.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly tells when to use it: 'to check that the shipped coverage files reach every element path and choice branch of an edition's XSD before relying on them to smoke a parser or a mapping.' Gives a clear context but does not name alternatives or when-not to use.

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