Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Tech Debt MCP Server

Tech Debt MCP Server

by viniciosrab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_supported_languages

List all programming languages supported by the analyzer so you can confirm coverage before scanning a project for technical debt.

Instructions

List all programming languages supported by the analyzer.

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": "list_supported_languages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List all" implies an exhaustive, read-only enumeration with no filtering or side effects, which is useful, but it does not confirm read-only semantics, pagination, or whether the result depends on configuration state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier "supported by the analyzer" is placed where it matters. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter enumeration tool this is nearly complete. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not say whether the return is a plain list of language names or includes identifiers/versions.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are needed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("List all programming languages supported by the analyzer") and states the scope is the analyzer's supported set. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_custom_rules or analyze_file, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the name and the word "supported" — call it to discover what the analyzer can process. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether a config must be loaded), and no named alternatives.

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