Skip to main content
Glama

Compiler Explorer

by io.github.compiler-explorer

list_compilers

Read-only

List available compilers, optionally filtered by language

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
leanNoForce id+name only, regardless of count. Useful to browse the catalog before drilling in.
matchNoCase-insensitive AND-of-tokens filter on id and name. Punctuation splits tokens; numeric tokens match whole-word ("gcc 14.1" matches "14.1.0" not "14.10"); alphanumeric tokens substring-match ("g14" matches "g142"). Literal text only — for "newest version" use `latestPerMajor`; for "newest X on arch Y" prefer `instructionSet` + `latestPerMajor`.
languageNoLanguage ID to filter by (e.g. "c++", "rust", "python")
maxResultsNoCap full-detail entries (default 25). Beyond the cap, degrades to lean (id+name only) with a refinement hint.
instructionSetNoTarget architecture filter. Combine with `latestPerMajor: true` for "newest X for arch Y" (e.g. `{language:"c++", instructionSet:"amd64", latestPerMajor:true}`).
latestPerMajorNo"Newest X" filter. By release track (stable/nightly/prerelease/experimental): newest stable per (language, instructionSet, semver major); all nightly + prerelease; experimental skipped unless `includeExperimental: true`.
includeExperimentalNoWith `latestPerMajor: true`, also include experimental compilers (c++ proposal forks, llvm-mos platform variants). Off by default — bloats "newest X" answers.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as read-only. The description provides some additional behavioral context (e.g., degrading to lean results beyond maxResults, refinement hints), but does not fully detail output structure or pagination limits, making it adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (single sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly expanded to include when to use this tool versus alternatives, but brevity is maintained without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given 7 parameters (all documented in schema), readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and major usage patterns. It could benefit from mentioning output structure, but the parameter documentation compensates.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much, but it enriches the schema with usage notes (e.g., 'Case-insensitive AND-of-tokens filter', 'numeric tokens match whole-word') and relationships between parameters (e.g., 'Combine with latestPerMajor: true'). This goes beyond the raw schema.

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 specifies the action ('List') and resource ('compilers') with an optional filter by language, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'compile' or 'list_languages'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies a browsing context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compile' for specific compilers. The rich parameter documentation guides usage but lacks direct comparison to siblings.

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

All Compiler Explorer toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: compiling code, sharing via short URLs, retrieving sharing info, listing compilers, languages, libraries, and looking up assembly instructions. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., list_compilers, generate_short_url, lookup_asm_instruction). The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. It covers core compilation, sharing, metadata exploration, and instruction documentation without being too sparse or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the primary workflow (compile, share, browse metadata) and includes a unique instruction lookup. A minor gap is the lack of detailed compiler information beyond listing, but this does not significantly hinder the agent's ability to use the server effectively.

Resources