code-synapse
Server Details
Finds real, maintained open-source repos that fit your project. MCP grounding for coding agents.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Both tools serve essentially the same purpose, with 'search_components' explicitly listed as a deprecated alias of 'find_fit_candidates'. This creates clear overlap and potential confusion for an agent deciding which to use.
Both names use snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern ('find_fit_candidates' and 'search_components'), which is consistent. The slight difference in specificity does not break consistency.
With only two tools and one deprecated, the effective tool count is one. This is too few for a meaningful server, making the surface feel thin and underdeveloped.
The server provides only search functionality for open-source reuse decisions. There are no tools for detailed inspection, comparison, or post-adoption actions, leaving significant gaps for a complete workflow.
Available Tools
2 toolsfind_fit_candidatesAInspect
Pre-adoption decision tool for open-source reuse. Call BEFORE implementing non-trivial functionality that a maintained OSS component could provide (queue, scheduler, parser, auth, cache, protocol client, ...) or before adding a dependency. Send a short capability need plus your project's minimal constraints; returns up to 12 candidates by default (up to 20 when max_candidates is provided), with per-constraint pass/fail/unknown, evidence basis (observed vs inferred), and explicit no-hit semantics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | Capability need, e.g. "job queue with retry for node.js". No project names, paths, or secrets. | |
| strict | No | also exclude candidates whose required constraint fields are unknown | |
| telemetry | No | aggregate stores zero user text (outcome counters only); debug also stores the need for 30 days | aggregate |
| exclusions | No | ||
| constraints | No | Minimal project constraints. Each verdict comes back as pass|fail|unknown per candidate. | |
| max_candidates | No | ||
| existing_components | No | owner/repo you already use — excluded and counted as already_have |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| corpus | Yes | |
| outcome | Yes | |
| candidates | Yes | |
| relaxation | No | present on constrained_out: real recount when dropping one constraint |
| no_hit_guidance | No | |
| contract_version | Yes | |
| rejected_summary | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: candidate limits (12/20), per-constraint evaluation (pass/fail/unknown), evidence basis, telemetry options, and no-hit semantics. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, which are not applicable given the tool's nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense paragraph with no fluff. It front-loads purpose and usage, then covers behavior and return semantics efficiently. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex with nested constraints and an output schema. The description covers the core logic and return values adequately. It could detail the license 'unknown' constraint more explicitly, but that is detailed in the schema. Overall, sufficient for an agent to understand usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 71%, and the description adds value by noting for the 'need' parameter: 'No project names, paths, or secrets.' The description does not repeat schema content but the schema itself is descriptive. Overall, description complements well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a 'pre-adoption decision tool for open-source reuse' and specifies the action 'find candidates' with concrete context (queue, scheduler, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by detailing its specific behavior and return semantics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says 'call BEFORE implementing non-trivial functionality' and gives examples of when to use (queue, parser, etc.). It implies when not to use (trivial functionality) but does not directly contrast with the sibling tool search_components, leaving a slight gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_componentsAInspect
Deprecated alias of find_fit_candidates (kept for compatibility; free-text search without constraint checking). Search open-source components in the Code Synapse graph by keyword, role, or category. Returns candidates with signals (role, protocols, affordance, fit, freshness). fit.status="unknown" means fit fields are not yet extracted — verify runtime/interfaces via the README before relying on them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | e.g. "music server", "vector db", "scraping" |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description adds specific behavioral context about fit.status='unknown' meaning fields not yet extracted and advises verifying via README. Does not cover other behaviors like rate limits or auth, but adequate for a read-only search.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences; first states action and result, second adds critical nuance. No wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description mentions return fields (signals with role, protocols, affordance, fit, freshness) and warns about fit.status. Lacks pagination or error info but sufficient for a search tool with one parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with description for 'query' parameter. Tool description adds 'by keyword, role, or category', slightly enriching the schema but not substantially. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Search', resource 'open-source components', and context 'Code Synapse graph'. Distinguishes from sibling tools assemble_architecture and get_synergy_guide which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for searching by keyword, role, category. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings. Includes a caveat about fit.status but no exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!