Skip to main content
Glama

ReSharper Inspect Code

resharper_inspect
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run ReSharper static analysis to find code issues in your solution, with configurable file scope, severity, and report output.

Instructions

Run ReSharper static analysis on the solution and return the code issues it finds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesNoAnt-style globs scoping the analysis to specific files, for example src/**/*.cs. Each is relative to the solution root, or absolute. jb matches them against the files that belong to a project in the solution, so one that is on disk but in no project matches nothing. An element joining several paths with ; or , is split into separate paths.
detailNoCap on the detail the response carries: Full, the default, lists every issue on its own line, and Minimal is one line of totals. Rendering starts at this level and never goes above it, but still steps below it when the result does not fit the output budget. The DETAIL REDUCED note says which of the two happened. Response shaping only: the same analysis runs whatever the level, so a lower level does not make a call finish sooner. Pair detail=Minimal with report=Markdown for a cheap verdict in the response and every finding in the file.Full
reportNoWrite the complete itemised findings to a file, and name it in the response. Markdown lists every issue with its own message, which is what the response listing collapses once a solution-wide run exceeds the output budget. The file lands in a directory this server owns and is pruned after 7 days; the response carries the summary either way.None
severityNoMinimum severity to report. Error is ReSharper's compilation-error level, not a tier of high-priority warnings; raising to it usually reports nothing.Warning
solutionPathNoPath to the .sln/.slnx to run against. Overrides JB_SOLUTION_PATH and working-directory discovery.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the minimal description is consistent and does not add contradictory claims. The phrase 'static analysis' is aligned with read-only behavior but adds little beyond annotations. No mention of performance, report-side effects in the tool description itself, though parameter descriptions do disclose file output and pruning behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action, target, and outcome immediately. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the title.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the parameter descriptions compensate by explaining response behavior: detail caps the listing, report writes a file with findings, and the response carries a summary. Combined with annotations and detailed schemas, an agent has almost everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is a precise description of the return object structure, but the information provided is sufficient for most call decisions.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself contains no parameter information, but the input schema thoroughly documents each parameter with examples, edge cases (e.g., files not belonging to a project), enum meanings, and interactions between detail, report, and severity. The description does not need to compensate, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Run ReSharper static analysis on the solution and return the code issues it finds.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like resharper_cleanup (which would modify code) and resharper_reset_cache (which would manage caches). The scope ('on the solution') and output ('code issues') are unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus resharper_cleanup or resharper_reset_cache. It does not mention 'use when you want to review issues without modifying code' or any exclusion criteria. The agent must infer intent from the sibling names and the word 'inspect', which is not enough for a clear routing decision.

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

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/andypgray/resharper-cli-mcp'

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