Skip to main content
Glama
stag-build

phonebook

by stag-build
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

analyze_coverage

Scan UI components and their previews to identify missing coverage: parameter states, environment objects, dark theme, large text, and localization. Get a report of gaps without modifying code.

Instructions

Scan the codebase for UI components and the previews that cover them, and report what each component is missing: states implied by its parameters, environment objects no preview supplies, dark theme, large text, and localization when the project ships one. Read-only — it reports the gaps, it does not write previews. After editing, pass changed: true (or paths) to hear only about what you touched; the whole project is always scanned either way, so the answers stay correct.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dirNoProject directory containing phonebook.config.json.
pathsNoReport only components declared in these files or directories, relative to the project directory. The whole project is still scanned.
changedNoReport only components in files with uncommitted git changes — what you just edited. Ignored outside a git repository. Combined with paths when both are given.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.7
    • addedInput schema / properties / changed
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Report only components in files with uncommitted git changes — what you just edited. Ignored outside a git repository. Combined with paths when both are given.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / paths
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Report only components declared in these files or directories, relative to the project directory. The whole project is still scanned.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only — it reports the gaps, it does not write previews,' and clarifies that the entire project is scanned even when filters are applied, ensuring the answers stay correct. This is honest and thorough for a read-only tool.

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?

The description is a single, dense paragraph but each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, behavioral safety, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the main objective, and the filtering instructions are kept concise. Slightly long but no waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is analyzed, what is reported, and how filters behave. It does not specify the exact return format, but that is a minor gap given the clarity of the rest. The tool is fully callable correctly from the description alone.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema: it explains that paths restrict reporting but not scanning, that changed is ignored outside a git repo, and that both combine when given together. This clarifies edge cases and adds meaning to each parameter.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Scan'), resource ('codebase'), and a precise objective: report what each UI component is missing in preview coverage (states, environment objects, dark theme, large text, localization). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_preview_guidance (which presumably offers guidance) and run_build/run_generate/check_setup (which are operational, not analytical).

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?

The description explains when to use the changed and paths parameters ('After editing, pass changed: true (or paths) to hear only about what you touched'), and notes that the whole project is always scanned regardless. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_preview_guidance, but the analytical vs. guidance nature is implied, and the filtering usage is well covered.

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