Skip to main content
Glama

coderegistry

by io.github.hellosg

reanalyze-code-vault

Creates a new analysis version for an existing code vault using its existing source settings. For LOCAL_AGENT, the response includes next_steps.commands and the local agent must be run again. For GIT/FILE_ARCHIVE, the re-analysis of the original code source is queued automatically. Note: summary/results/report tools always return the latest version only, so reanalysis replaces access to prior version data. 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
authorNoOptional author name override.
api_keyNoOptional API key for clients that cannot set X-API-Key headers.
commentNoOptional version comment.
user_idNoOptional user id for attribution (from create_account or get_account).
vault_idYesVault id (from create-code-vault or list_vaults).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important side effects: it creates a new analysis version that replaces access to prior version data, and it behaves differently depending on source type. It also states auth requirements. It does not fully describe queued-job status or failure semantics, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: definition, mode-specific behavior, the latest-version caveat, and auth fallback. The most important purpose is front-loaded.

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 target resource, side effects, source-type behavior, and auth, which is strong for a tool with no output schema. It is slightly incomplete because it doesn't describe the response/status surface for queued GIT/FILE_ARCHIVE reanalysis, outside of the local-agent commands.

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 schema already explains all five parameters. The description's api_key note roughly mirrors the schema's own explanation and adds no new param semantics.

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 first sentence names a specific action ('creates a new analysis version') with a specific resource ('existing code vault') and a constraint ('using its existing source settings'). This clearly distinguishes reanalysis from create-code-vault and from read-only vault tools.

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 establishes when to use the tool: you have an existing vault and want a new analysis version without changing source settings. It also gives mode-specific follow-up instructions (local agent must run again vs queued automatically) and warns that standard read tools show only the latest version. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context is clear.

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