No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 1 tool
With a single tool, there is no cross-tool ambiguity to resolve, and the description explicitly draws a clear boundary against Grep/Glob/Read (structure vs text search). The only residual overlap is internal (getDependents vs getCallGraph vs traceSymbolUsage), which the description addresses but does not fully resolve without running api.listMethods().
A single name cannot be internally inconsistent, and 'code_intel' is a clean, readable snake_case identifier. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb_noun pattern, so there is no predictable action convention to anchor on, but nothing is violated.
The one-tool design is intentional (a code-execution entry point fronting a multi-method api.* surface), which is defensible for this domain. However, as presented the server exposes exactly one thinly-described tool whose real capabilities are hidden behind api.listMethods()/api.help(), making the surface feel thin and requiring a discovery round-trip.
The stated domain — graph-backed code intelligence — is well covered: symbol search, dependencies/dependents, call graph, usage tracing, impact analysis, orphan detection, and architecture overview. Gaps are minor (e.g. no explicit symbol-level diff/change-scope or test-impact mapping), and read-only scope is appropriate for an intelligence tool.