Skip to main content
Glama
MausRundung

Project Explorer MCP Server

by MausRundung
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

explore_project

Analyze a project directory by listing files with sizes and parsing import/export dependencies to reveal dependency entanglement.

Instructions

Lists all files in a directory with their sizes. For JS/TS/TSX/JSX and Dart it parses imports/exports/functions and resolves local import edges (including Dart package: URIs and pubspec.yaml path dependencies) to summarize dependency entanglement. Reports Dart/Flutter packages found via pubspec.yaml (name, SDK constraints, deps, assets). Also extracts import/export-like declarations for common languages (Python/Java/Kotlin/Go/Rust/C#). Excludes common build directories like node_modules, .git, dist, .dart_tool, etc.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoAlias for directory
directoryNoThe directory path to analyze
subDirectoryNoOptional subdirectory within the main directory to analyze
includeHiddenNoWhether to include hidden files and directories (starting with .)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / path
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for directory",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "directory"
-]New value: +[]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does so richly: it lists files with sizes, parses imports/exports, resolves dependency edges, reports Dart packages, and declares exclusions for build directories. It does not mention permissions, side effects, or edge cases like symlinks, but the read-only, analytical nature is clearly conveyed.

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, information-dense paragraph. It front-loads the primary function and then adds details about supported languages and exclusions. While every sentence contributes unique content, the structure could be more scannable with bullet points, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 tool's complexity (language parsing, dependency resolution, package reporting), the description covers the major behaviors and inputs. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description partially compensates by describing what is reported, but it does not detail the exact output structure or error handling, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 descriptions already cover all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description is not required to explain them. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions directories generically but does not elaborate on path, subDirectory, or includeHidden semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a clear action and resource: 'Lists all files in a directory with their sizes.' It then enumerates additional analyses, making the tool's purpose concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_files, but the core listing/analyzing behavior is clearly distinct.

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 provides a thorough explanation of what the tool does, which implies when it should be used (e.g., to get an overview of a project and its dependencies). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions/alternatives, so guidance is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools