Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add commands/umbraco/umbraco-cms-mcp-dev/analyze-coveragegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/umbraco/Umbraco-CMS-MCP-DevWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/umbraco/umbraco-cms-mcp-dev/analyze-coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/umbraco/umbraco-cms-mcp-dev/analyze-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/umbraco/umbraco-cms-mcp-dev/analyze-coverage.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00483 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00242 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00097 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00048 |
Grade A, and why
analyze-coverage scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
/analyze-coverage
Regenerates the Umbraco MCP endpoint coverage analysis report by comparing implemented tools against the full API endpoint list.
Usage
/analyze-coverage
Description
This command analyzes the current state of MCP tool implementation and generates a comprehensive coverage report showing:
- Overall coverage statistics
- Coverage breakdown by API group
- Missing endpoints for each group
- Priority recommendations for implementation
- Quick wins (nearly complete sections)
Steps Performed
- Regenerate API endpoint list from the Orval-generated Umbraco client
- Parse
src/api/umbraco/client.tsto extract all API methods - Group endpoints by API category/tag from the OpenAPI spec
- Update
docs/analysis/api-endpoints-analysis.mdwith the complete endpoint list
- Parse
- Scan all implemented MCP tools in
src/umbraco-api/tools/ - Match implemented tools against API endpoints
- Calculate coverage percentages per API group
- Generate formatted report with statistics and recommendations
- Save report to
docs/analysis/UNSUPPORTED_ENDPOINTS.md
Output
The command updates the UNSUPPORTED_ENDPOINTS.md file with:
- Total endpoint count and coverage percentage
- Alphabetically organized API groups with coverage status
- List of missing endpoints for incomplete groups
- Priority recommendations for implementation
- Quick wins section highlighting nearly complete groups
Example Output
🔍 Analyzing Umbraco MCP endpoint coverage...
📖 Parsing API endpoints from documentation...
Found 37 API groups
🔧 Scanning implemented MCP tools...
Found 269 implementations
📊 Calculating coverage statistics...
📝 Generating coverage report...
✅ Coverage report generated successfully!
Output: docs/analysis/UNSUPPORTED_ENDPOINTS.md
📈 Summary:
Total Endpoints: 393
Implemented: 269
Coverage: 68%
Missing: 124
Notes
- The command uses the
api-endpoints-analysis.mdas the source of truth for available endpoints - Coverage is calculated by matching tool implementations against endpoint names
- The report is organized alphabetically by API group for easy navigation
- Status indicators: ✅ Complete (100%), ⚠️ Nearly Complete (80%+), ❌ Not Implemented (0%)
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 5d ago First seen · 60 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A dcf45f5f945a
analyze-coverage is a command published in the GitHub repository umbraco/Umbraco-CMS-MCP-Dev (39 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 483 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.