Rovodev MCP Tool
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 | {} |
| logging | {} |
| prompts | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| ask-rovodevC | Query Rovodev AI with support for file analysis (@file or #file syntax), codebase exploration, and large context windows. Supports various models and execution modes. |
| pingB | Echo a message to test the connection |
| HelpB | Display rovodev CLI help information |
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 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: ask-rovodev is for AI-powered querying with file analysis, Help provides CLI documentation, and ping is for connection testing. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection unambiguous.
Naming is inconsistent: ask-rovodev uses kebab-case with a verb-noun structure, Help uses PascalCase (or title case) with a noun only, and ping uses lowercase with a verb only. There is no predictable pattern across the tool set.
With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a server named 'Rovodev MCP Tool', which suggests broader capabilities. However, the tools cover basic AI querying, help, and connectivity, so it's borderline but not severely mismatched.
Inferred domain is AI-assisted development or code analysis, but the tool surface is significantly incomplete. There are no tools for operations like code generation, debugging, version control integration, or configuration management, which are typical in such domains, leading to potential agent failures.