DevInsight MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| repo_statsA | Get a language and size breakdown for a local repository. Args: path: Filesystem path to the repo root (default: current directory). Returns: Dict with total_files, total_lines, and a per-extension breakdown (files + lines), sorted by line count descending. |
| find_todosA | Scan a repo for TODO / FIXME / HACK / XXX comments. Args: path: Filesystem path to the repo root. max_results: Cap on how many matches to return (default 100). Returns: List of {file, line_number, tag, text} dicts, one per match found. |
| git_log_summaryA | Summarize the most recent git commits in a repo: author, date, message, and how many lines were added/removed. Args: path: Filesystem path to the repo root (must be a git repo). count: How many recent commits to include (default 10). Returns: Dict with a list of commits, or an error if this isn't a git repo. |
| find_large_filesA | Flag source files that are unusually large — often a signal they're due for a refactor or split. Args: path: Filesystem path to the repo root. threshold_lines: Minimum line count to be flagged (default 300). top_n: Max number of files to return, largest first (default 10). Returns: List of {file, lines} dicts, sorted largest first. |
| repo_healthA | Give a repository an overall health score with supporting evidence. Checks for a README, a LICENSE, a test suite, and Git version control, plus TODO density and oversized files, then rolls it all into a single 0-100 score with concrete recommendations. Args: path: Filesystem path to the repo root. large_file_threshold: Line count above which a file counts as "large". Returns: Dict with score, component checks, counts, largest_files, and a list of recommendations for the lowest-scoring areas. |
| tech_stackA | Detect a project's technology stack from its manifest and config files. Looks for common manifests (pyproject.toml, requirements.txt, package.json, Dockerfile, docker-compose.yml, GitHub Actions workflows, Cargo.toml, go.mod, composer.json, build.gradle, and more), and inspects package.json / requirements.txt contents for known frameworks and databases. Args: path: Filesystem path to the repo root. Returns: Dict with sorted lists for languages, frameworks, databases, package_managers, ci_cd, and deployment, plus the manifest files that were found. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| review_todos | Build a prompt asking Claude to triage this repo's TODOs by urgency and suggest which ones to tackle first. |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 6 tools
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of repository analysis—large files, TODOs, git log, health, stats, and tech stack. There is no functional overlap between tools.
All names use snake_case and are descriptive, but there is a mix: two start with 'find_' (verb) while the rest start with nouns like 'git_log_', 'repo_', 'tech_'. This is a minor inconsistency.
Six tools form a well-scoped set for a repository insights server. Each tool provides a distinct, valuable capability without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers core areas: file analysis, TODOs, git history, overall health, stats, and tech stack. Missing features like complexity or dependency analysis are not critical gaps given the tool count.