Skip to main content
Glama
stedwick

codecov-mcp-server

by stedwick
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Codecov MCP Server

A Codecov Model Context Protocol server in TypeScript.

  • Tools for finding where your codebase is lacking tests.

  • Prompts for suggesting which tests to write.

Features

Resources

  • None yet

Tools

  • get_commit_coverage_totals - Returns the coverage totals for a given commit and the coverage totals broken down by file. Uses this api.

Prompts

  • suggest_tests - Suggests tests to write based on Codecov report.

Related MCP server: test-coverage-mcp

Installation

Usage: Ask your AI agent to "run the get_commit_coverage_totals tool" in your chat.

Configure: No need to install anything, just run with npx and put in your Codecov API key from here - Go to Settings -> Access.

And git url: git remote get-url origin

Cursor command: npx -y codecov-mcp-server --api-key XXX --git-url XXX (On Windows) Cursor command: cmd.exe /c npx -y codecov-mcp-server --api-key XXX --git-url XXX

To use with Claude (or any AI), add the server config:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "codecov-mcp-server": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "codecov-mcp-server",
      ],
      "env": {
        "CODECOV_API_KEY": "XXX",
        "GIT_URL": "XXX"
      }
    }
  }
}

Debugging

Since MCP servers communicate over stdio, debugging can be challenging. We recommend using the MCP Inspector, which is available as a package script:

npm run inspector

The Inspector will provide a URL to access debugging tools in your browser.

Development

Install dependencies:

npm install

Build the server:

npm run build

For development with auto-rebuild:

npm run watch

Available Tools

1 tool
get_commit_coverage_totalsA

Returns the Codecov coverage totals for a given commit and the coverage totals broken down by file

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'returns' data, which indicates a read-only operation, but it does not mention error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens if the commit is not found. This is minimal but sufficient for a simple read operation.

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, clear sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It explains what is returned (coverage totals and breakdown by file) but does not clarify how the commit is identified or what the response structure looks like. This leaves the tool's usage context incomplete.

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?

The input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. However, the description references 'a given commit' without providing any parameter or context for how the commit is specified. This introduces ambiguity and suggests a parameter that does not exist, which detracts from the value of the 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 function: returning Codecov coverage totals for a commit, broken down by file. The verb 'returns' and the specific resource 'coverage totals' make the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from potential siblings by focusing on commit-level coverage totals.

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?

The description implies use cases for retrieving commit coverage totals but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since no sibling tools are listed, the lack of exclusion or alternative references is not critical, but the description could be clearer about the intended context (e.g., for a specific commit in a CI pipeline).

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool updatev0.1.5
    • First observedget_commit_coverage_totals
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clear and unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'get_commit_coverage_totals' follows a clear verb_noun pattern and is descriptive. With only one tool, consistency is trivially satisfied, but the name itself is well-formed.

Tool Count2/5

One tool is far too thin for a Codecov MCP server, which typically would need multiple operations (commits, branches, reports, etc.). The server appears to be scoped too narrowly.

Completeness2/5

The tool only provides commit coverage totals with file breakdown. Many obvious Codecov features are missing (e.g., coverage by branch, pull request, or trend analysis), creating significant gaps for most use cases.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • coverage-mcp

    ProgrammerDream
    F
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    MCP server for Java branch coverage analysis using JaCoCo. Enables agent-style coverage feedback with per-test-class granularity and uncovered line identification.
    2
    -

  • test-coverage-mcp

    goldbergyoni
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    MCP server that provides instant, token-efficient test coverage data for any programming language, allowing agents to query coverage summaries and track session progress.
    52
    41
    MIT

  • test-trust

    rrudy9
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    MCP server that performs mutation testing and diff scoping to score how trustworthy tests are for detecting regressions in changed code.
    MIT

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/stedwick/z-codecov-mcp'

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