Skip to main content
Glama
wadew
by wadew

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v1.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool serves a unique purpose: list_categories allows discovery, get_tool_schema provides parameter details, and execute_tool runs the actual tool. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent 'sonar_verb_noun' pattern (list_categories, get_tool_schema, execute_tool), using snake_case and clear action-resource naming.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is an ideal size for a meta-MCP server that dynamically exposes many underlying tools. Each tool earns its place with a critical role in the workflow.

    Completeness5/5

    The set covers the full discovery-execution lifecycle: discover tools, inspect schema, then execute. No gaps for the intended meta-functionality.

  • Average 4.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available
  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
      "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
      "maintainers": [
        "your-github-username"
      ]
    }

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the execution action and return values (tool result or error dict) but does not discuss side effects, destructive potential, or authentication needs. The behavior is partially transparent.

    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?

    The description is four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.

    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?

    The description covers usage flow (get schema first) and basic behavior. With an output schema available, the lack of detailed return format is acceptable. It could mention that the output depends on the specific tool executed, but the guidance is adequate.

    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 0%, but the description adds value by providing an example for tool_name ('sonar_list_issues') and directing users to sonar_get_tool_schema for argument details. This compensates for the lack of schema description.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute any SonarQube tool by name with the provided arguments.' It distinguishes from siblings like sonar_get_tool_schema (schema retrieval) and sonar_list_categories (listing).

    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 advises using this tool after obtaining the schema via sonar_get_tool_schema, which is a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for an executor tool.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds value by detailing the return structure (success, tool_name, schema, description, error) and noting that schema provides parameter details, without contradicting annotations.

    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?

    The description is concise with no wasted words, front-loads the purpose, and uses clear sections for args and returns, making it easy to parse.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the simplicity (1 param) and presence of an output schema in the description, the tool is fully documented with purpose, usage, parameter details, and return format, leaving no gaps.

    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?

    Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explicitly documents the 'tool_name' parameter with examples (e.g., 'sonar_list_issues'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

    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 clearly states the tool retrieves the full JSON schema for a specific SonarQube tool, and distinguishes it from sibling tools 'sonar_execute_tool' and 'sonar_list_categories' by positioning it as a preparatory step before execution.

    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 explicitly instructs to 'Use after list_categories to get parameter details before calling execute_tool', providing clear workflow context. While it does not enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use, the guidance is direct and actionable.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Annotations confirm readOnly and idempotent, and description adds detail on return structure and category enumeration, providing full transparency.

    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?

    Description is structured and concise, covering purpose, parameters, and return values without unnecessary words.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Tool is simple with one optional param; description fully explains input, output, and behavior; output schema is supplemented.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    Only parameter 'category' is described with purpose and example values (instance, project, etc.) despite schema lacking enums; adds essential semantics.

    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?

    Description uses verb 'Discover' and clarifies it lists SonarQube tools by category, distinct from sibling tools which execute or get schema.

    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?

    Does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, but the purpose of listing tools is implied; no usage exclusions are given.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

sonar-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

sonar-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wadew/sonar-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server