Kiro MCP Server

Kiro code intelligence

kiro_code_intelligence

Initializes and retrieves LSP-backed code intelligence for a Kiro session, including status, overview, and logs; reports KIRO_REFUSED when code intelligence is disabled.

Instructions

LSP-backed code intelligence (_kiro/codeIntelligence), like /code: init, status, overview, logs. Kiro's success false (for example when it is not enabled) is KIRO_REFUSED.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "subcommand": "<subcommand>"
    },
    "name": "kiro_code_intelligence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`force`	No
`session_id`	Yes	Kiro session id (sess_<uuid>).
`subcommand`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`success`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description need not restate them. It does add genuinely useful behavior: failures surface as KIRO_REFUSED, for example when Kiro is not enabled. However, it never explains what mutating effects are expected given readOnlyHint=false (presumably init writes config), nor whether operations are safe to repeat despite idempotentHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Only two sentences, and the purpose clause is front-loaded, so it is compact. But the second sentence ('Kiro's success false ... is KIRO_REFUSED') is awkwardly phrased and the parallel to shell commands ('/code: init') assumes context an agent may not have.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the tool has a required session_id, a four-way subcommand enum, and a mutating profile (readOnlyHint=false) that the description leaves largely unexplained. For a multi-mode tool, the definition should at minimum say what init and overview yield and what force changes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate, but it does not. It names the four subcommand values without explaining what any of them do, and the 'force' parameter and its effect are never mentioned at all, rounding out the undocumented third of the surface.

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 description identifies the resource as LSP-backed code intelligence and echoes the four subcommands (init, status, overview, logs), but it never states what each subcommand actually does, so the verb side of 'verb + resource' is missing. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like kiro_specs or kiro_knowledge only by guessing what 'init' or 'overview' produce.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether LSP must be enabled or a session configured), and no exclusions or pointers to alternatives among the 30 sibling tools. The only conditional information is an error code, which is a failure signal rather than usage guidance.

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