Autodocument MCP Server

# Autodocument MCP Server Code Review ## Overview The code implements a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for automatic documentation generation. It provides tools for generating documentation, test plans, and code reviews for codebases using AI models through OpenRouter's API. ## Architecture The system consists of several interconnected modules: - **Main server** (index.js): Implements the MCP server interface - **Configuration** (config.js): Manages server settings - **Prompt configuration** (prompt-config.js): Defines prompts for different documentation types - **Supporting modules**: - **Analyzer**: Examines code files to determine documentation needs - **Crawler**: Traverses directory structures respecting .gitignore rules - **Documentation**: Generates and aggregates documentation - **OpenRouter**: Client for AI model interaction ## Code Quality Assessment ### Strengths 1. **Well-structured configuration system** with defaults, environment variable overrides, and runtime overrides 2. **Modular design** with clear separation of concerns between components 3. **Comprehensive error handling** throughout the codebase 4. **Progress reporting** to prevent timeouts during long-running operations 5. **Customizable prompts** that can be modified without changing implementation code ### Security Considerations 1. **API key handling**: The code appropriately handles API keys through environment variables and configuration, but there's no validation to ensure API keys meet minimum security requirements. 2. **Path validation**: There's no explicit validation that the provided paths are safe to access. This could potentially lead to directory traversal issues if the tool is exposed to untrusted inputs. ### Best Practice Violations 1. **Limited input validation**: The `isValidAutoToolArgs` function checks types but doesn't validate that paths exist or are safe to access. 2. **Hardcoded values**: Some values like heartbeat intervals are hardcoded rather than configurable. 3. **Error messages**: Some error messages expose implementation details that might not be necessary for end users. ### Potential Bugs 1. **Progress calculation**: The progress percentage calculation assumes a linear relationship between directories processed and total work, which might not be accurate if directories vary significantly in size. 2. **Error handling in aggregator.run**: While errors are caught and logged, there's no clear recovery mechanism if a critical error occurs during processing. ### Integration Considerations 1. The server integrates well with the MCP SDK and properly implements the required interfaces. 2. The integration between the main server and the tool registry is clean and follows good dependency injection practices. 3. The progress callback mechanism provides good integration between long-running operations and the MCP server's need to report progress. ## Improvement Opportunities 1. **Enhanced path validation**: Add explicit checks to ensure provided paths are valid and safe to access. 2. **Configuration validation**: Implement validation for the configuration to ensure all required fields have valid values. 3. **Improved error recovery**: Add more sophisticated error recovery mechanisms for long-running operations. 4. **More configurable options**: Move hardcoded values like heartbeat intervals to the configuration system. ## Conclusion Overall, the code is well-structured and follows good software engineering practices. The modular design makes it maintainable and extensible. With some minor improvements to security validation and error handling, the codebase would be even more robust.