Repository Analyzer MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEFAULT_REPO_PATH | No | Default path to the repository to analyze. If not set, uses current working directory. |
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": true
} |
| resources | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| analyze-codeD | – |
| search-codeD | – |
| git-historyD | – |
| analyze-repoD | – |
| analyze-ndkD | – |
| analyze-nostr-protocolD | – |
| analyze-ndk-filesD | – |
| debug-pathD | – |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| file | |
| directory |
TDQS
Scored across 8 tools
Multiple tools share the 'analyze-' prefix with no descriptions, making it impossible for an agent to distinguish between targets like code, ndk, repo, etc. Some tools like debug-path and git-history have unique names but lack descriptions, still causing ambiguity.
The naming convention is mixed: most tools use 'analyze-<subject>' but three diverge with different verbs (debug, git, search). This inconsistency disrupts predictability.
With 8 tools, the count is reasonable for a repository analysis server. It covers several analysis facets without being overwhelming.
The tool surface appears focused on analysis but lacks operations for managing results, listing analyses, or performing updates. Without descriptions, it's unclear if core workflows are supported.