code-index-mcp

by Krat12

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 purpose: file_symbols for file outline, index_stats for statistics, list_services for service listing, reindex for rebuilding, and four differentiated search tools (hybrid, semantic, symbol, text) with clear guidance on when to use each.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_hybrid, file_symbols, list_services), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a code index server: listing, stats, rebuilding, and four search variants cover the core functionality without bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers essential operations (list services, rebuild index, search, show file symbols) but lacks granular index management (e.g., individual file add/remove) and cross-service search, limiting flexibility in some workflows.
Average 3.7/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 12 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description correctly implies a read-only operation ('Show'), but does not disclose any edge cases or behaviors (e.g., behavior when service is null). Adequate but not thorough.
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 extraneous words. Efficient and to the point.
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?
For a simple stats tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks clarification on the optional parameter and does not leverage the output schema to explain return values.
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 explain the 'service' parameter. It mentions 'for a service' but neither defines the parameter nor notes its optionality and null default, leading to potential misinterpretation.
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 shows index statistics (files and symbols) for a service, distinguishing it from search and reindex siblings. However, it does not clarify that the 'service' parameter is optional, which could be confusing.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'file_symbols' or 'list_services'. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
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 fully disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The explanation is limited to parameter effects.
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 concise (two sentences plus a line of parameter notes), front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant information.
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?
Covers purpose, parameters, and basic usage. Missing behavioral context like error cases, return format (though output schema exists), or prerequisites. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all three non-required parameters (limit, exact, service) and their defaults or meanings, adding value beyond the raw schema.
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 ('Find symbol definitions') with a specific verb and resource, and gives examples of symbol types. It implies differentiation from siblings by focusing on definitions rather than text search, but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
Provides basic guidance (use to jump to definitions, explains exact and service parameters) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions. Siblings like search_text and file_symbols are not addressed.
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 explains the behavior of the 'full' parameter but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., performance impact, temporary unavailability) or whether the operation is safe to run concurrently.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not required. The description covers the core purpose, parameter behavior, and usage context. Missing details about constraints (e.g., service format) are minor given the tool's straightforward nature.
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 coverage is 0% so description must compensate. It explains 'full' well: 'full=true forces a complete re-index; otherwise only changed files are updated.' However, 'service' is only vaguely described as 'for one service' without listing possible values or format, leaving interpretability gaps.
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 states 'Rebuild the index from disk for one service,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_* and index_stats by specifying it's about rebuilding, not querying or stats.
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 includes 'Use after large changes,' which gives a high-level usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.
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 must cover behavioral aspects. It states ordering by line but does not detail what symbols are included, file type limitations, or error conditions. Basic but incomplete.
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 one concise sentence, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are defined elsewhere. The description is mostly complete for a simple tool, though it lacks context on file type support or prerequisites.
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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It does not explain what 'path' or 'service' represent or their constraints.
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 it lists symbols (outline) of a single file, ordered by line, which distinguishes it from sibling search tools that operate across files.
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 use for a single file's outline but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_symbol. No exclusions or when-not guidance is 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 must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'best-effort' but does not clarify implications (e.g., result consistency, rate limits). There is no mention of side effects or whether the tool is read-only, which is insufficient for a search tool with multiple sub-types.
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 two sentences and one note. It front-loads the purpose and provides usage guidance without wasted words.
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 complexity (combining three search types) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks discussion of error handling, result ordering, or how the hybrid approach differs from individual search tools.
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 meaning to the 'service' parameter ('selects the index (name or id); omit for the default service'), but does not elaborate on 'query' or 'limit' beyond what the schema provides. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.
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 'Best-effort combined search: symbols + text + semantic for one service', specifying the tool's function as a multi-layer search. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like search_symbol, search_text, and search_semantic.
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 gives explicit guidance: 'Prefer this when you're not sure which layer fits', indicating the use case. It also explains the service parameter's role. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. Reveals it's vector similarity search, but omits behavioral traits like idempotence, return format, or error conditions. Adequate but incomplete.
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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value; no redundancy.
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?
Output schema exists, so return format may be documented elsewhere. Description covers purpose and one parameter, but misses details on limit behavior and edge cases. Reasonably complete given complexity.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'service' selects the index, but adds no detail for query or limit. Partial value.
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 'fuzzy meaning-based search (vector similarity via Qdrant)' with an example query, distinguishing it from siblings like search_text and search_symbol.
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?
Explicit advice: 'Use for conceptual queries... when you don't know exact identifiers.' Mentions service parameter selects index. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative names, but context is clear.
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 provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses return fields (name, id, path) but does not mention potential issues like registry unavailability or rate limits. Adequate for a simple read 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.
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 list with no params and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return values, and usage context. Minor gaps on error behavior, but acceptable given low complexity.
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?
No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 applies since description does not need to add param info.
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 'List' and clear resource 'indexable microservices from the external registry', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (all searches or reindex) by stating the output can feed into search 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?
Explicitly states the tool is for listing microservices and how to use the results (as service argument in search tools). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but siblings are distinct enough.
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 must carry the full burden. It mentions the return format and that it uses FTS5, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or side effects. For a read-only search tool, the disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Three sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and output. The second gives usage guidance, and the third explains parameter semantics. Information is front-loaded efficiently.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not detailed in description) and 3 parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, return format, and parameter meanings. It omits explicit limits on result count or pagination, but the schema hints at 'limit' with default. Overall, sufficiently complete for a search tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds crucial meaning: for 'query', it provides FTS5 syntax examples; for 'service', it explains selection of microservice index. The 'limit' parameter is not elaborated, but the schema provides default. Overall, it compensates well for missing schema descriptions.
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 it performs 'Exact full-text search across a service (FTS5)' and specifies the return format 'path:line: content'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_semantic and search_hybrid, which imply non-exact or semantic search.
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?
It explicitly lists use cases: 'Use for known strings, identifiers, config keys, error messages.' It does not mention when not to use, but the context of siblings provides some guidance. The description also explains FTS5 syntax and service selection.
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:

[![mcp-code-index MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Krat12/mcp-code-index/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Krat12/mcp-code-index)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-code-index MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Krat12/mcp-code-index/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Krat12/mcp-code-index)

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/Krat12/mcp-code-index'

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