Skip to main content
Glama

coderegistry

by io.github.hellosg

get-code-smells

Returns code smell findings for a project (all vaults) or a single vault. 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
fileNoFilter: substring match on file path.
limitNoMax results to return (default 50, max 200).
offsetNoNumber of results to skip, for pagination.
api_keyNoOptional API key for clients that cannot set X-API-Key headers.
issue_idNoReturn only this specific code smell id.
vault_idNoVault id (from create-code-vault or list_vaults). Returns data for this vault only.
issue_typeNoFilter: exact match on issue type.
project_idNoProject id (from create_project). Returns data aggregated across all vaults in the project.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meaningfully explains access restrictions: 'Requires full data access (a paid plan; verification-only plans are not included)' and 'Requires X-API-Key', plus the api_key fallback for header-less clients. It does not discuss rate limits or response limitations beyond the schema, but the get-style operation is represented clearly.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the required ID constraint, then access requirements and the header fallback. Every sentence contributes.

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 selection constraint and access requirements well, and 'code smell findings' is adequate for a list-fetch tool even with no output schema. It could say more about the returned finding structure, but the schema already documents filters and pagination parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description largely repeats what the schema already states: exactly one of project_id or vault_id, and the fallback use of api_key when headers are not supported. It adds little new meaning beyond the structured schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('code smell findings') and scope ('project (all vaults) or a single vault'), with a specific verb ('Returns'). It does not explicitly contrast a sibling tool like get-code-vault-results, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It gives an explicit invocation rule: 'Provide exactly one of project_id or vault_id.' It also states the required permission level and API key prerequisite, giving clear context for when the tool can be used, though it does not name alternative tools.

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