repo-map-mcp

by Kevin-CNC

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct responsibility: setting descriptions, indexing, fetching the map, searching, and retrieving stale files. No overlap or ambiguity exists between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (set_description, index_repository, get_repo_map, search_files, get_stale_files). Predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
5 tools is a well-scoped size for a focused repository indexing server. Each tool earns its place with a clear role, no redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the core workflow: indexing, description management, retrieval, search, and staleness detection. No obvious gaps; the lifecycle is fully addressed.
Average 3.4/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 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. It states the output (files and their funcs) but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites like requiring an existing index (from index_repository), or behavior when the index is missing or outdated.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key criterion and output. No wasted words.
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?
The tool appears to depend on an existing index (sibling index_repository), but the description doesn't mention prerequisites or failure modes. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't explain the index concept or why 'funcs changed' is the staleness criterion, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'root_path's index', which implies root_path identifies an indexed location, but fails to specify whether it's a directory path, file path, or required format. This is minimal added context for the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource: files in root_path's index whose description is stale due to changed funcs. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like set_description and index_repository by focusing on identifying stale 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?
No explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies it's for discovering stale descriptions before updating them, but it doesn't say that directly or mention alternatives like set_description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it 'clear its stale flag' which is a behavioral effect beyond the basic write operation. However, there are no annotations, so the description carries the burden for transparency. It doesn't mention whether it overwrites existing descriptions, if it requires certain permissions, or if it's idempotent. But it does mention the side effect of clearing the stale flag, which is useful. Given no annotations, it provides some behavioral context but not comprehensive. I'll give 3.
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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. It states the action and side effect without unnecessary detail. No fluff, so I'll give 4.
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?
The tool has a simple operation with one side effect, and the description captures the main point. However, there is no information about return values (output schema exists but description doesn't mention what it returns), and no guidance on error conditions or prerequisites. With no annotations, some additional context could be expected, but the core functionality is clear enough. I'll give 3.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has properties but very little description (only titles), and the description does not explain the meaning of the parameters. It doesn't clarify what 'root_path' vs 'path' mean: likely 'root_path' and 'path' and description, but the description covers the purpose of each? The description only says 'path in root_path's index' but doesn't define 'root_path' or 'path' clearly, and doesn't describe the 'description' parameter beyond being a one-line description. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but doesn't sufficiently. I'll give 2.
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 ('Write a one-line description') and the target ('path in root_path's index'), and specifies an additional effect ('clear its stale flag'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_stale_files (which would retrieve stale files) and search_files, but it doesn't explicitly mention that it's part of an index, which might be a specific verb+resource and mentions two distinct actions, but no alternate tool named. The description provides a specific verb, not clear: it's like set_description directly—the purpose, though the description is clear about the description, but it's not a verb+resource+scope, but it's a clear and correct for the phrase 'write a one-line description' on a path in an index, clearing the stale flag, so it's clear that it's a write operation to the index, but it doesn't explicitly mention that abound公有hank Equalowler audio喵 (for clarity, the description adds a verb+忡宾客: I think it's 4, but it's sufficient, as the description is clear enough to contrast with 'get' tools like get_repo_map, get_stale_files, but it doesn't explicitly name them. However, it does provide a specific action and scope, so I'll give 4.
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 does not provide any when-to-use guidance, but no when to use this tool, but the description implies that it's a specific: actually the description implies that the description only shows a single line, but the description does not mention when to use this vs alternatives like search_files or index_repository, but the context suggests it's used to set descriptions, but the description doesn't mention any conditions or exclusions. Since it's a clear is a straightforward task, I'll give 3 as it's implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it walks a path, processes changed files, updates an index map, and returns a summary, which gives a basic understanding of its operation. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether it overwrites existing entries, removes stale references, or requires a git repository. The description also doesn't mention performance implications or any irreversible actions. While it adds some transparency, it leaves critical behavioral details unclear.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the action (walk, hash/parse, update) and the return (summary). Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and directly communicates the core functionality.
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 simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the main action and return value, but it lacks crucial contextual details. It does not explain the purpose of the 'force' parameter, nor does it provide any guidance on prerequisites or conditions for safe usage. Without annotations, the description alone does not fully equip the agent to invoke the tool correctly in all scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It mentions 'root_path' in the phrase 'Walk root_path', implicitly indicating it is the directory to scan, but it provides no details on format or constraints. The 'force' parameter is entirely absent from the description, leaving its purpose and effect unexplained. Since only one of two parameters is even hinted at, the description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: it walks a root_path, hashes/parses changed files, and updates the .repo-index/index.json map. This is a specific verb+resource (updating an index map) that distinguishes it from siblings like search_files or get_stale_files. It also mentions it returns a summary, further clarifying its purpose.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when you need to refresh or update the repository index, but it does not state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools. The description provides no context about scenarios where this is the appropriate choice, so the agent must infer usage from the name and purpose.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that it returns a JSON repo index and mentions optional scoping, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it performs network calls, requires authentication, or has performance implications. Given the lack of annotations, this is a significant gap.
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: two sentences with zero fluff. Every word earns its place. It front-loads the purpose and includes a usage hint at the end.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values, but given the tool's complexity (returning a repo map) and the lack of annotations, the description could do more to explain prerequisites or the nature of the index. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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 0%, meaning the description must compensate for parameter semantics. The description mentions 'root_path' and 'dir_prefix' in the text, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the format or expected values for these parameters in detail, so it only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Return the JSON repo index for root_path, optionally scoped to dir_prefix.' It specifies the resource (repo index) and the operation (return), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by indicating it returns an index, which is unique among sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Call this before exploring,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient given the tool's role in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope ('repo index'), the fields searched, and the fact it's a substring match, but omits details like case sensitivity, pagination, or side effects. Acceptable for a read-only search tool but not exhaustive.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. The verb 'search' leads, and the appositive list of fields adds necessary detail without wordiness. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers the core behavior and scope. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. Minor details like case sensitivity or result limits are not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' is the substring and 'root_path' scopes the search to a repo, but lacks examples or constraints (e.g., pattern type, path format). Provides some added meaning but leaves room for ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states a specific verb (search) and resource (repo index), and enumerates the searchable fields (fileName/description/funcs). It differentiates from siblings like set_description and index_repository by its explicit scope and search semantics.
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?
Usage is implied by 'substring search' and the mention of 'repo index,' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor cross-referencing to sibling tools. It's adequate but not explicit about alternatives.
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:

[![better-scout MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Kevin-CNC/better-scout/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Kevin-CNC/better-scout)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![better-scout MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Kevin-CNC/better-scout/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Kevin-CNC/better-scout)

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/Kevin-CNC/better-scout'

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