Skip to main content
Glama
0xjcf
by 0xjcf

Server Configuration

Describes the environment variables required to run the server.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
REDIS_URLNoCustom Redis URL for connectionredis://localhost:6379
STDIO_TRANSPORTNoSet to true to enable Stdio Transport mode instead of HTTP Transport
FORCE_MEMORY_SESSIONNoForce memory session store even if Redis is available

Instructions

Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.

This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.

Capabilities

Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.

Tools

Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions

NameDescription
analyze-dependenciesD–
calculate-metricsD–
analyze-repositoryD–
analyze-metricsD–
analyze-cursorD–
analyze-filesD–
analyze-qualityD–
list-quality-rulesD–
build-knowledge-graphD–
query-knowledge-graphD–
export-knowledge-graphD–
visualize-dependenciesD–
visualize-code-structureD–
store-codebase-insightD–
retrieve-codebase-insightsD–
update-codebase-insightD–
socio-technical-analysisD–
cross-repo-analysisD–
evolution-pathwayD–
create-sessionD–
get-session-infoD–
get-session-historyD–
clear-sessionD–
list-sessionsD–
search-codeD–
project-infoD–
get-fileD–
folder-structureD–

Prompts

Interactive templates invoked by user choice

NameDescription
review-code

Resources

Contextual data attached and managed by the client

NameDescription
analysis-results

TDQS

D1.5/5.0

Scored across 28 tools

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries and overlapping purposes, such as analyze-files, analyze-repository, and project-info, which could all relate to codebase analysis, and analyze-metrics versus calculate-metrics, which seem redundant. The lack of descriptions exacerbates this ambiguity, making it difficult for an agent to distinguish between similar-sounding tools like visualize-code-structure and visualize-dependencies.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming shows mixed conventions: most tools use kebab-case (e.g., analyze-cursor, build-knowledge-graph), but some deviate with underscores (e.g., cross-repo-analysis, socio-technical-analysis) or inconsistent verb styles (e.g., analyze-* versus get-* versus list-*). While readable, the patterns are not fully consistent, leading to a moderate score.

Tool Count2/5

With 28 tools, this server feels heavy and potentially over-scoped for code analysis, suggesting redundancy or fragmentation. A typical well-scoped server might have 3-15 tools; this count is borderline excessive, indicating a lack of focus that could overwhelm agents and reduce usability.

Completeness3/5

Inferring the domain as code analysis, the tool set covers aspects like analysis, metrics, knowledge graphs, and visualization, but there are notable gaps. For example, it lacks clear CRUD operations for core entities beyond insights (e.g., no update or delete for sessions), and the overlap in analysis tools suggests incomplete coverage rather than a streamlined workflow.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues