Skip to main content
Glama

coderegistry

by io.github.hellosg

get-the-code-score

Returns The Code Score (security/code-quality/dependencies, 1000 points) for a project (aggregated) 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). If the plan doesn't include Code Score access, or it hasn't been generated yet, returns the same response shape with empty sections/priorities rather than an error. 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.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well. It states the paid-plan/data-access requirement, explains that missing access or an ungenerated score returns empty sections rather than an error, and clarifies the X-API-Key versus api_key argument 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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences front-load the result and scope, then cover plan requirements, edge-case behavior, and authentication. No repetition or 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?

Everything needed to call the tool correctly is present: parameter exclusivity, auth requirements, plan prerequisite, and the empty-response behavior. The description only vaguely references 'sections/priorities' without an output schema, so it falls just short of fully specifying the response shape.

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 reinforces the exactly-one constraint and the api_key fallback, but those are already present in the schema; it adds no new parameter-level semantics.

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 as 'The Code Score' with its dimensions and 1000-point scale, and specifies the two scopes: aggregated project or single vault. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling code-vault tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: call this when you need Code Score data for a project or vault, and the schema's oneOf constraint makes the exactly-one-id requirement explicit. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose instead.

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