DevMatch

find_similar_projects

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find open-source projects similar to a seed GitHub repo, closest in description, topics, and README. Each result includes top contributors as leads — not a hiring shortlist. Returns structuredContent (view=similar_projects). Agents: consume structuredContent only.

Use for landscape mapping or to discover anchor repos; follow with find_candidates for hiring matches.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Seed repo in `owner/name` form (e.g. 'karpathy/llm.c'). A full github.com URL is also accepted; the server strips the prefix.
`limit`	No	Number of similar projects to return. Defaults to 10, max 25.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seed`	No	The owner/name searched against
`projects`	Yes	Similar projects, closest to the seed repo by vector similarity.
`query_ms`	No
`total_count`	No
`cache_source`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results include top contributors as non-shortlist leads, and agents should consume structuredContent only. This clarifies output semantics and usage expectations without contradicting the read-only/idempotent 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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, output behavior, and usage guidance with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and complete annotations, the description covers what the tool does, how results should be interpreted, and how it relates to sibling tools. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema fully documents repo and limit. The description reinforces that repo is a seed repo and notes comparison criteria, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find open-source projects similar to a seed GitHub repo, closest in description, topics, and README.' It clearly differentiates the tool from find_candidates by stating that results are leads, not a hiring shortlist.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('for landscape mapping or to discover anchor repos') and when to follow with an alternative ('follow with find_candidates for hiring matches'). This gives an agent unambiguous routing guidance.

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

All DevMatch tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role: find_candidates searches for people, find_similar_projects maps repos, and get_profile retrieves a single known profile. The only potential overlap (find_candidates already returns profiles) is explicitly resolved with guidance not to call get_profile unless deeper detail is needed.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent find_/get_ verb-noun pattern. The naming clearly communicates the action (search vs retrieve) and the object (candidates, similar_projects, profile).

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is a tight, focused set for this server's purpose: candidate discovery, project landscape mapping, and individual profile lookup. Each tool is independently useful and there are no redundant or filler tools.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is covered: find candidates, discover similar projects, and fetch deeper profile details. A minor gap is the lack of direct project-detail retrieval or broader project search, but agents can work around this via find_similar_projects and get_profile.

Resources

Need Help?