Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Tech Debt MCP Server

Tech Debt MCP Server

by viniciosrab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

analyze_file

Analyzes a single file to detect technical debt issues and highlight areas needing remediation.

Instructions

Analyze a single file for technical debt issues.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to the file to analyze

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.1

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 the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of what kind of analysis runs, whether custom rules or config are applied, expected cost/latency on large files, or what happens when the path is invalid. For a tool that runs an analysis pass, an agent has no basis to anticipate behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though brevity here reflects under-specification rather than deliberate compression.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source for return values and behavior, and it says nothing about either. For a non-trivial analysis tool, an agent cannot tell what it gets back (issue list, score, debt metrics) or how results relate to the get_debt_summary / get_issues_by_* siblings.

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 a single required 'path' parameter already described as an absolute path, so the schema does the work. The description adds no constraints or format details beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema is fully documented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Analyze a single file') plus the domain ('technical debt issues'), and the word 'single file' implicitly scopes it against analyze_project. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of analyze_project as the alternative for whole-project analysis. The only hint is the word 'single file' in the purpose statement, which is incidental rather than deliberate routing guidance.

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