Skip to main content
Glama
DeDeveloper23

Codebase MCP

by DeDeveloper23
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The three tools have distinct purposes: retrieving local codebase, retrieving remote codebase, and saving codebase. While 'getCodebase' and 'getRemoteCodebase' both retrieve code, the local/remote distinction is clear. There's minor potential confusion about whether 'saveCodebase' saves the local or remote version, but overall boundaries are well-defined.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with camelCase styling: getCodebase, getRemoteCodebase, saveCodebase. The naming is predictable and follows the same grammatical structure throughout, making it easy for agents to understand the action-object relationship.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, this feels quite minimal for a 'Codebase MCP' server. While the tools cover basic retrieval and saving operations, the scope seems limited - there are no tools for searching, analyzing, modifying, or managing codebase components. The count is borderline thin for what could be expected from a codebase management system.

    Completeness2/5

    For a codebase management server, there are significant gaps in functionality. The tools only provide retrieval and saving operations using RepoMix, but lack any tools for code analysis, search, modification, version control operations, or component management. This creates a dead-end surface where agents can only get and save entire codebases without any ability to work with code meaningfully.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 issues responded to in the last 6 months
    • No commit activity data available
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves code as text. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts for large codebases, authentication needs, or output format specifics beyond 'single text output'.

    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?

    Single sentence, front-loaded with core purpose, zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential action without unnecessary elaboration.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a complex tool with 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the output structure, performance considerations, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

    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 fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying retrieval scope ('entire codebase'), maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

    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 states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('entire codebase'), specifying it outputs as 'single text output using RepoMix'. It distinguishes from 'saveCodebase' (write vs. read) but not explicitly from 'getRemoteCodebase' (local vs. remote retrieval).

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention 'getRemoteCodebase' for remote codebases or 'saveCodebase' for saving output, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions output is 'a single text output' but doesn't disclose size limits, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'RepoMix' entails. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without wasted words. Every part earns its place by specifying retrieval, resource, output format, and method.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return structure, potential errors, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

    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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool handles remote repositories via 'repo', which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('remote repository's codebase'), specifying it returns 'a single text output using RepoMix'. It distinguishes from sibling 'getCodebase' by emphasizing 'remote' and 'RepoMix', but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'saveCodebase'.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings 'getCodebase' or 'saveCodebase'. The description implies usage for remote repositories but doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Save' which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify file system permissions, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling, or output format details. The mention of 'RepoMix' adds some context but lacks operational specifics needed for a mutation tool.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It uses minimal words to convey the core functionality without any fluff or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a mutation tool with 10 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like file overwriting. The high parameter count and mutation nature require more contextual information than provided.

    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%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

    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 states the action ('Save') and resource ('codebase to a file') with the specific tool 'RepoMix'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'getCodebase' and 'getRemoteCodebase' by indicating a save/write operation rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't specify what exactly gets saved (e.g., entire codebase, filtered content).

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools or any contextual cues for choosing this over 'getCodebase' or 'getRemoteCodebase'. It's a standalone statement with no usage context.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

codebase-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

codebase-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DeDeveloper23/codebase-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server