codebase-mcp
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 | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| get_project_treeA | Returns the directory structure and file tree of the local repository, respecting .gitignore rules. |
| search_codebaseA | Searches the codebase for a text pattern or regular expression, returning matching files, line numbers, and snippets. |
| read_project_fileA | Reads the contents of a specific file within the project safely with line numbers. |
| inspect_tech_stackA | Analyzes package files (package.json, Cargo.toml, requirements.txt, Dockerfile, etc.) to report project dependencies, frameworks, and setup. |
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 4 tools
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of codebase exploration: tree structure, content search, file reading, and dependency analysis. There is no overlap in purpose or output.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_project_tree, search_codebase, read_project_file, inspect_tech_stack). The verbs are distinct and accurately describe the action.
Four tools is well-scoped for a codebase exploration server. Each tool provides a necessary and non-redundant capability, without being overly sparse or bloated.
The set covers common read-only codebase tasks: structural overview, searching, reading files, and identifying tech stack. A minor gap is the lack of direct directory-level file listing or metadata, but the overall surface is sufficient for typical exploration.