Code Scanner Server
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
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| scan_codeA | Scans a directory for code files (JS, TS, C#, PHP, CSS, respecting .gitignore) and lists definitions (functions, classes, etc.) with line numbers. Supports XML, Markdown, and JSON output. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool 'scan_code' has a clear, distinct purpose focused on scanning code files and listing definitions, making it impossible for an agent to misselect between non-existent alternatives.
The single tool name 'scan_code' follows a verb_noun pattern, which is consistent and predictable. Since there is only one tool, there are no deviations or mixed conventions to evaluate, resulting in perfect naming consistency.
A single tool is too few for a server named 'Code Scanner Server', which implies a broader scope of code analysis operations. While 'scan_code' is comprehensive, the lack of additional tools (e.g., for filtering results, analyzing specific file types, or managing scans) makes the set feel thin and underdeveloped for the apparent domain.
The tool set is severely incomplete for a code scanning domain. It covers scanning and listing definitions but lacks essential operations such as filtering results, analyzing code quality, detecting vulnerabilities, or integrating with version control. This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform comprehensive code analysis tasks.