Skip to main content
Glama

coderegistry

by io.github.hellosg

get-code-vault-summary

Returns the latest version/status info for a vault. Analysis is async; if status is 'processing', poll with exponential backoff (5s, 10s, 20s, 40s, max 60s). Analysis can be as quick as 20-30 minutes for under 500,000 lines of code. Larger codebases can take much longer, especially with the security scan. This endpoint always returns the latest version only; once reanalysis starts, prior versions are no longer accessible here. 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_idYesVault id (from create-code-vault or list_vaults).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it reveals async analysis, the exact polling cadence, time estimates, the latest-version-only behavior, and the API-key requirement. This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond what the schema or annotations would supply.

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 seven sentences long but each sentence carries operational value: purpose, polling, timing, latest-version semantics, and auth. It is somewhat wordy in the timing section, but it is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, it adequately covers authentication, header-vs-argument fallback, vault_id provenance via the schema, polling behavior, and version semantics. It does not enumerate possible response status values, but that is a minor gap for invocation.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters fully (100% coverage), including the api_key fallback and the source of vault_id. The description restates the header-vs-argument fallback but adds no substantively new parameter meaning, so the schema-carries-the-load baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and object ('Returns the latest version/status info for a vault') and sharpens the scope by noting this endpoint only serves the latest version and prior versions become inaccessible after reanalysis. This differentiates it from siblings like get-code-vault-results or get_vault without requiring their schemas.

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?

Provides concrete invocation guidance: poll with exponential backoff when status is 'processing', sets expected latency expectations, and explains the authentication fallback for clients that cannot send headers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when-not-to-use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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