Skip to main content
Glama
AB498

Code Context Provider MCP

by AB498
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool has a clear and distinct purpose focused on providing project context.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_code_context), and with only one tool, there is no inconsistency to evaluate. The naming is clear and descriptive.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is generally too few for most MCP server purposes, as it limits functionality and can feel thin. For a 'Code Context Provider', one tool may not cover all potential needs like updating or filtering context, making it borderline inadequate.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for the implied domain of code context provision. While it offers a comprehensive overview, there are obvious gaps such as tools for updating context, filtering by file type, or handling specific symbols, which could lead to agent workarounds or failures.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (context, directory tree, code symbols) and its usefulness for project overviews, but lacks details on performance, error handling, or specific output format. This provides basic behavioral context but leaves gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is appropriately sized with three sentences that each add value: stating the tool's purpose, its usefulness for overviews, and when to use it. It is front-loaded with the core functionality. A minor deduction for slight redundancy ('useful' appears twice).

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and usage context but lacks details on output format, error cases, or performance considerations. Without an output schema, more guidance on return values would be beneficial for full contextual 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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters like analyzeJs and includeSymbols. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

    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 description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('returns complete context') and resources ('project directory, including directory tree, and code symbols'). It distinguishes the tool's comprehensive overview capability, which is well-defined even without sibling tools for comparison.

    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?

    The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('useful for getting a quick overview of a project' and 'useful at the start of a new task'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, as there are no sibling tools mentioned to differentiate from.

    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

code-context-provider-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

code-context-provider-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/AB498/code-context-provider-mcp'

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