Local Project Sync

by Cytrogen

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but read_file_content and read_file_section could be confused as both handle file reading with different granularity. The descriptions clarify their differences (full file vs. line ranges), but an agent might initially misselect between them. Other tools like analyze_project_structure and search_code_content are clearly distinct.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as analyze_project_structure, extract_function_definition, and list_project_files. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for a project sync server focused on code analysis and file operations. Each tool appears to earn its place by covering specific aspects like structure analysis, file listing, reading, and searching, without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core operations for project analysis and file reading comprehensively, including structure analysis, function extraction, file listing, and content searching. A minor gap is the lack of write or update tools (e.g., modify files), which might limit full project management workflows, but agents can work around this for read-only tasks.
Average 3/5 across 7 of 7 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does ('analyze project structure, generate module and function overview') but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it's read-only, what format the output is in, if it has side effects, performance considerations, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, but it might be overly brief given the lack of other contextual information. It efficiently states what the tool does 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?
Given the complexity of analyzing project structure (which could involve parsing code, understanding dependencies, etc.), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only states the basic purpose, there's insufficient information about what the tool actually returns, how it handles different project types, or what 'module and function overview' entails. The description doesn't compensate for these gaps.
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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't explain how 'depth' or 'scope' affect the analysis, such as what 'depth=3' means in practice or how 'frontend' vs 'backend' scoping works.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('分析项目结构，生成模块和功能概览' - 'analyze project structure, generate module and function overview'), which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the verb ('analyze') and resource ('project structure'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_project_files' or 'extract_function_definition' in terms of what makes this analysis unique versus just listing files.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this analysis is appropriate compared to 'list_project_files' for basic file listing or 'search_code_content' for searching within files. There's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (read) but doesn't mention permissions needed, error handling (e.g., invalid line numbers), output format, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with files.
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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted content.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that reads files (potentially involving permissions or errors), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, or error conditions, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
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 already documents all parameters (filePath, startLine, endLine, showLineNumbers) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying line-range usage, matching the baseline 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 '读取文件的指定行范围' (Read specified line range of a file) clearly states the verb (read) and resource (file), specifying it operates on a line range. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_file_content' (which likely reads entire files) by focusing on sections, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_file_content' or 'extract_function_definition'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions support for regular expressions, which is a useful trait, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, pagination, or whether it's read-only. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 in Chinese: '在项目代码中搜索指定内容，支持正则表达式'. It is front-loaded with the core function and includes a key feature (regex support) without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output schema, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves and what it returns.
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 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning support for regular expressions (implied by the useRegex parameter) but not providing additional context like search scope or result formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: '在项目代码中搜索指定内容，支持正则表达式' (search for specified content in project code, supports regular expressions). It specifies the verb '搜索' (search) and resource '项目代码' (project code), distinguishing it from siblings like list_project_files or read_file_content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools beyond the basic function.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer search_code_content over siblings like analyze_project_structure or read_file_content for finding specific content, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the function but not explicitly stated.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool extracts (function definitions with comments/decorators), it doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it returns raw text or structured data, what happens if the function isn't found (error handling), or any performance/rate limit considerations. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes key scope details (comments and decorators). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 moderate complexity (extracting specific code elements), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the 'what' (extract function definitions) but misses behavioral details (e.g., output format, error handling) and usage context versus siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness is needed for optimal agent use.
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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter details (filePath, functionName, includeComments, includeDecorators). The description mentions '包括注释和装饰器' (including comments and decorators), which aligns with the boolean parameters but doesn't add new meaning. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.
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 tool's purpose: '提取指定函数/方法的完整定义，包括注释和装饰器' (Extract the complete definition of a specified function/method, including comments and decorators). It specifies the verb (extract), resource (function/method definition), and scope (including comments and decorators). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_file_content' or 'read_file_section' that might also access code 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'read_file_content' (which reads entire files) or 'read_file_section' (which reads arbitrary sections), leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
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 it's a listing operation (implies read-only) and mentions recursion, but doesn't address important aspects like: what format the output takes (list of paths? metadata?), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, how many directories are scanned, or what happens with permission errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 Chinese sentence that conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information (recursive listing of files in sync directories). 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?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and the description is brief, there are significant completeness gaps. While the purpose is clear, the description doesn't explain what the output looks like (critical for a listing tool), doesn't mention behavioral constraints, and provides no usage context. For a tool that presumably returns file listings, the lack of output information is a notable deficiency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. It appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, which is correct for this schema configuration.
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 ('递归列出' - recursively list) and the resource ('所有已配置同步目录中的文件' - all files in configured sync directories). It specifies the scope (recursive, all files in sync directories) which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like 'read_file_content' or 'search_code_content'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'analyze_project_structure' which might also involve file listing.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate versus using 'search_code_content' for filtered searches, 'read_multiple_files' for reading specific files, or 'analyze_project_structure' for structural analysis. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context provided.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the file path format constraint, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist), output format, or size limits, which are important for a file-reading operation.
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 and adds necessary constraint details. Every part earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple read operation. It covers the basic action and parameter constraint, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or output structure, which could help the agent use it more 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%, with the parameter 'filePath' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by restating the path format example ('[backend/src]/main.ts'), which is already in the schema description. 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 tool's purpose: '读取项目内指定文件的内容' (read the content of a specified file within the project). It specifies the verb (read) and resource (file content), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'read_file_section' or 'read_multiple_files' beyond the single-file focus implied by '指定文件' (specified file).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the file path format requirement but doesn't compare to siblings like 'read_file_section' (for partial reads) or 'read_multiple_files' (for batch operations), leaving the agent to infer usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions batch reading and glob pattern support but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify file encoding, error handling (e.g., if some files are missing), performance implications (e.g., large files), or output format (e.g., array of file contents). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond basic functionality.
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 extremely concise with just two phrases: '批量读取多个文件内容，支持glob模式' (batch read multiple file contents, supports glob patterns). Every word earns its place by stating the core action and key feature without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (batch file reading with glob patterns), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file contents, paths, errors), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., file size, permissions). For a tool that likely returns multiple data points, this omission makes it inadequate 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'patterns' as an array of file patterns and 'maxFiles' as a limit with a default of 20. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning glob patterns, which is already implied in the schema's example. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 tool's purpose: '批量读取多个文件内容' (batch read multiple file contents) with the specific capability '支持glob模式' (supports glob patterns). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_file_content' (single file) and 'list_project_files' (listing without reading content). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from 'search_code_content' (which might also read files but with search functionality).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through '批量读取多个文件内容' (batch reading multiple files) and '支持glob模式' (glob patterns), suggesting this tool is for reading multiple files matching patterns rather than single files or other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'read_file_content' (for single files) or 'search_code_content' (for searching within files), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![local-project-sync MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Cytrogen/local-project-sync/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Cytrogen/local-project-sync)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![local-project-sync MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Cytrogen/local-project-sync/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Cytrogen/local-project-sync)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/Cytrogen/local-project-sync'

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