Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
uxloom

uxloom

Official
by uxloom-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

coverage_report

Compare delivered screens against required journey states and produce a coverage report listing per-screen coverage and missing states.

Instructions

The demo number: screens delivered vs. states the journeys actually need. Returns per-screen coverage and the missing-state list.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "coverage_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that the tool returns per-screen coverage and a missing-state list, implying a read-only operation. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover details like data sources, required permissions, or potential performance impact.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the output. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is adequate for a simple reporting tool with no parameters, but it lacks context relative to the sibling 'project_validate'. No output schema is provided, but the return values are mentioned. Complete enough for basic use.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, which is acceptable. Baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 tool compares screens delivered vs. states needed and returns per-screen coverage and missing-state list. It distinguishes from sibling 'project_validate' by focusing on coverage, but lacks a specific verb like 'calculate' or 'generate'.

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 the sibling 'project_validate'. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it.

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