CodeAnalysis MCP Server

# Phase 1 Implementation Documentation This document provides a comprehensive overview of the completed implementations for Phase 1 of the MCP Code Analysis project. It consolidates information about the standardized response formats, tool documentation improvements, test framework setup, and the XState state management implementation. ## 1. Standardized Response Formats ### Response Schema Standardization We've implemented a standardized response format using Zod schemas to ensure consistency across all tool interactions. This provides better type safety, validation, and a uniform interface for clients. #### Core Response Types ```typescript // Success Response { status: 'success', data: { // Tool-specific response data } } // Error Response { status: 'error', error: { message: string, code: string, details?: unknown } } // Partial Response { status: 'partial', data: { // Intermediate data }, progress: { percentage?: number, message?: string } } ``` #### Implementation Details - Located in `src/responses.ts` - Enforces consistent response structure with Zod schemas - Provides utility functions for creating each response type - Includes TypeScript type definitions for improved developer experience #### Usage Example ```typescript import { createSuccessResponse, createErrorResponse, createPartialResponse, } from "./responses"; // Success response const successResp = createSuccessResponse({ result: "Code analysis complete", issues: [], }); // Error response const errorResp = createErrorResponse({ message: "Failed to parse file", code: "PARSE_ERROR", details: { file: "main.ts", line: 42 }, }); // Partial response const partialResp = createPartialResponse( { completedFiles: ["file1.ts"] }, { percentage: 50, message: "Processing files..." } ); ``` ## 2. Tool Documentation Improvements ### Documentation Structure We've implemented a standardized approach to tool documentation that makes it easier for developers to understand and use the available tools. #### Key Components - **Tool Schema Documentation**: Auto-generated from Zod schemas - **Usage Examples**: Added for each tool - **Error Handling Guidelines**: Standardized approach to error handling - **Parameter Documentation**: Detailed descriptions of each parameter #### Implementation Details - Documentation is now co-located with the tool definition - JSDoc comments are used for inline documentation - Schema definitions are used to generate parameter documentation - Documentation generation is automated as part of the build process #### Example Tool Documentation ```typescript /** * Analyzes code patterns in a file or directory * * @example * // Analyze a single file * const result = await codePatternAnalysis({ * targetPath: './src/main.ts', * patterns: ['unused-variables', 'complex-functions'] * }); * * @example * // Analyze a directory with custom configuration * const result = await codePatternAnalysis({ * targetPath: './src', * patterns: ['all'], * exclude: ['node_modules', '**/*.test.ts'], * config: { complexityThreshold: 15 } * }); */ export const codePatternAnalysisTool = createStatefulTool({ name: 'codePatternAnalysis', description: 'Analyzes code patterns to identify potential issues', schema: z.object({ targetPath: z.string().describe('File or directory path to analyze'), patterns: z.array(z.string()).describe('Patterns to look for'), exclude: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe('Patterns to exclude'), config: z.record(z.any()).optional().describe('Additional configuration') }), handler: async (params, context) => { // Implementation } }); ``` ## 3. Test Framework Setup ### Test Architecture We've established a comprehensive testing framework using Vitest to ensure code quality and prevent regressions. The framework includes unit tests, integration tests, and mock utilities for testing MCP interactions. #### Key Testing Components - **Unit Tests**: For individual components and utilities - **Integration Tests**: For end-to-end tool execution - **Mock Server**: For simulating MCP server interactions - **Test Utilities**: Shared helpers for test setup and assertions #### Directory Structure ``` src/tests/ ├── responses.test.ts # Tests for response formatters ├── statefulTool.test.ts # Tests for stateful tool creation ├── toolMachine.test.ts # Tests for XState machine └── toolService.test.ts # Tests for tool execution service ``` #### Test Implementation Patterns 1. **Shared Instances with Lifecycle Management** - Using `beforeEach` and `afterEach` for proper setup and teardown - Shared mocks across related tests for consistency 2. **Test Isolation** - Each test runs with a clean state - Mocks are reset between tests - Tests are organized into logical describe blocks 3. **Type Safety** - Tests include proper TypeScript typing - Mock objects match actual implementation types #### Example Test ```typescript describe("Tool Execution Service", () => { let service: ToolExecutionService; beforeEach(() => { service = new ToolExecutionService(); }); afterEach(() => { vi.clearAllMocks(); }); describe("Tool Selection", () => { test("updates context when selecting a tool", async () => { const toolDefinition = { name: "testTool", schema: z.object({}) }; await service.selectTool(toolDefinition); expect(service.getContext().toolName).toBe("testTool"); expect(service.getContext().toolSchema).toEqual(toolDefinition.schema); }); }); }); ``` ## 4. XState State Management ### State Machine Architecture We've implemented XState for managing the tool execution lifecycle, providing a predictable and type-safe way to handle state transitions. #### Machine States 1. **idle**: Initial state, waiting for tool selection 2. **toolSelected**: A tool has been selected, waiting for parameters 3. **executing**: Tool is currently executing 4. **completed**: Tool execution completed successfully 5. **error**: Tool execution failed with an error #### State Transitions ``` idle → toolSelected → executing → completed ↘ ↘ executing → error ``` #### Context Structure ```typescript interface ToolMachineContext { toolName: string | null; toolSchema: z.ZodSchema | null; parameters: Record<string, unknown>; response: Response | null; error: Error | null; history: ExecutionHistoryEntry[]; } ``` #### Implementation Details - Located in `src/state/machines/toolMachine.ts` - Provides type-safe state transitions - Maintains execution history - Handles parameter validation - Manages tool execution lifecycle #### Usage with Service The `ToolExecutionService` provides a higher-level API around the state machine: ```typescript import { ToolExecutionService } from './state/services/toolService'; const service = new ToolExecutionService(); // Select a tool await service.selectTool({ name: 'codeAnalysis', schema: /* schema definition */ }); // Set parameters await service.setParameters({ filePath: './src/main.ts', options: { deep: true } }); // Execute the tool const result = await service.execute(); ``` ## 5. Tool State Persistence ### Session Management We've implemented a stateful tool helper that enables tools to maintain state across multiple invocations within the same session. #### Key Features - **Session Creation**: Automatic creation of sessions when needed - **State Persistence**: Tool state is maintained between calls - **Session Cleanup**: Tools for managing session lifecycle - **Schema Modification**: Automatic addition of sessionId parameter #### Implementation Details - Located in `src/statefulTool.ts` - Uses a session store for maintaining state - Modifies tool schema to include sessionId - Provides helper functions for session management #### Usage Example ```typescript import { createStatefulTool } from "./statefulTool"; import { z } from "zod"; export const chatMemoryTool = createStatefulTool({ name: "chatMemory", description: "A tool with memory of previous interactions", schema: z.object({ message: z.string().describe("Message to add to chat history"), }), handler: async (params, context) => { // Get existing state or initialize const state = context.getState<{ history: string[] }>() || { history: [] }; // Update state state.history.push(params.message); // Save state for next invocation context.setState(state); return createSuccessResponse({ message: "Message added to history", history: state.history, }); }, }); ``` ## 6. API Contract Verification We've implemented a strict API contract verification system to ensure that all components adhere to the expected interfaces and behaviors. This is crucial for maintaining compatibility and preventing regressions. ### Verification Methods 1. **Static Analysis**: TypeScript interfaces and Zod schemas 2. **Runtime Validation**: Schema validation at runtime 3. **Integration Testing**: Tests that verify contract adherence 4. **Documentation Verification**: Ensuring documentation matches implementation ### Core API Contracts - **Tool Registration**: Interface for registering tools with the MCP server - **Tool Execution**: Contract for executing tools and handling results - **Response Format**: Standardized format for all tool responses - **State Management**: Interfaces for interacting with the state machine ## Conclusion Phase 1 has successfully established the foundational components of the MCP Code Analysis system: 1. **Standardized Response Formats**: Ensuring consistency and type safety 2. **Tool Documentation**: Improving developer experience 3. **Test Framework**: Enabling reliable testing and preventing regressions 4. **XState State Management**: Providing predictable state transitions 5. **State Persistence**: Enabling stateful tools with session management 6. **API Contract Verification**: Ensuring component compatibility These implementations provide a solid foundation for Phase 2, which will focus on scaling the system with Redis session management, implementing more advanced analysis tools, and enhancing performance.