Skip to main content
Glama

coderegistry

by io.github.hellosg

get-code-iq-automated-queries

Returns trimmed Code IQ automated analyses (architecture, scalability, EOL, AI functionality, etc.) for a project (aggregated) or a single vault. Excludes The Code Score — use get-the-code-score for that, and do not pass analysis_key=code_score here (404). Only cached results are returned; this never triggers a fresh analysis. Provide exactly one of project_id or vault_id. Requires full data access (a paid plan; verification-only plans are not included). Requires X-API-Key (existing users can generate an API key in the web app). If headers aren't supported, pass api_key in arguments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNoOptional API key for clients that cannot set X-API-Key headers.
vault_idNoVault id (from create-code-vault or list_vaults). Returns data for this vault only.
project_idNoProject id (from create_project). Returns data aggregated across all vaults in the project.
analysis_keyNoOptional: return only this analysis (e.g. project_architecture). Omit for all.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses cache-only behavior, no fresh analysis triggering, the 404 case for code_score, paid plan access requirements, and the X-API-Key or api_key authentication path.

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 front-loaded with the core return behavior, then covers exclusions, caching, id constraints, access requirements, and auth fallback. Each sentence contributes distinct value with no filler.

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?

The description covers the important invocation context: routing, caching, auth, access level, and parameter constraints. Since there is no output schema, a slightly more explicit description of the response shape would make it fully complete, but the listed analysis categories provide a reasonable high-level picture.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics, particularly that analysis_key=code_score is invalid here and that exactly one of project_id or vault_id must be supplied, but most parameter meaning already exists in the 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 states a specific operation: it returns Code IQ automated analyses for either a project or a single vault. It also explicitly excludes The Code Score and names get-the-code-score as the correct sibling, making differentiation clear.

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 gives direct routing guidance: use get-the-code-score for Code Score and do not pass analysis_key=code_score here. It also clarifies that results are cached only, so fresh analysis is never triggered, and documents exact id requirements and auth prerequisites.

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

All coderegistry 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are mostly distinct by resource and action, but the three get-code-vault-* variants (summary, results, reports) plus get_vault create a cluster of similar-sounding retrieval tools. The use of both 'vault' and 'code-vault' in names increases the chance of misselection, though descriptions do clarify the differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming convention is inconsistent: snake_case (create_account, get_vault, list_projects) is mixed with kebab-case (create-code-vault, get-code-vault-summary, reanalyze-code-vault). The same concept is referred to as 'vault' and 'code-vault' across tool names, breaking predictability.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools, the server is slightly over the ideal 3-15 range but still reasonable for the domain covering accounts, projects, vaults, and analysis retrieval. The count is justified by the distinct resources and operations, though a few vault-related tools could potentially be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The server provides solid lifecycle coverage: account create/get/delete, project CRUD (minus update), vault create/read/delete/reanalyze, plus API key rotation. Minor gaps exist, such as no update methods for accounts or projects, but the core workflows are well-supported without dead ends.

Resources