Code Editor MCP Server

by TripQi

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: v0.2.5
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but edit_block and edit_blocks are very similar in function, differing only in whether they apply a single or multiple edits. This overlap could cause an agent to select the wrong one. Other tools like dir_ops and file_ops are clear.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming is a mix of verb_noun (convert_file_encoding, edit_block, read_file) and noun_verb (dir_ops, file_ops). The 'ops' suffix is not a verb, breaking the pattern. Also singular/plural vary (edit_block vs edit_blocks, read_file vs read_files) but are consistent in context.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is well-scoped for a code editor server, covering file reading/writing/editing, directory ops, encoding, and configuration. Each tool earns its place without bloat or deficiency.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers most core code editing operations: read, write, edit, directory listing, encoding conversion, and root management. A notable gap is the lack of a content search across files, which would be useful for a code editor. Otherwise, the surface is solid.
Average 3.8/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on January 2, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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 exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states 'get metadata' which implies read-only, but does not confirm read-only behavior, error handling (e.g., file not found), or whether it works on directories. Minimal behavioral insight.
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 very short: one sentence plus an Args line. It is efficient and gets straight to the point. However, it could be improved with a bit more context without adding much length.
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?
Given the tool is simple and has no output schema, the description should explain what 'metadata' includes (e.g., size, type, permissions) and potential errors. It does not, leaving the agent without essential information about return values or failure modes.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds 'Absolute path to the target.' This provides crucial semantic meaning (must be absolute, refers to file or directory) beyond the type and name in the schema. Effectively compensates for the schema gap.
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 'Get metadata for a file or directory.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_file' (which reads content) and 'file_ops' (which performs operations). The scope is well-defined.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., root path must be set), nor does it indicate when to prefer this over reading file content. The description lacks context for decision-making.
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?
The description implies a mutation ('add') but fails to disclose side effects, permission requirements, or behavior on duplicates. With no annotations provided, the tool's safety profile and behavioral nuances are inadequately communicated.
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 the minimal viable length of two sentences, with the parameter note separated. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the parameter detail could arguably be integrated into the schema's description field.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description should cover edge cases like duplicate entries or invalid paths. The current text is overly simple for a tool that modifies system state, leaving many queries unanswered.
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?
The documentation for the parameter 'root_path' adds critical constraints ('absolute path', 'existing directory') beyond the schema's type-only definition. This significantly aids the AI in correctly invoking the tool, though format and validation details are omitted.
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 'Add a directory to the allowed whitelist' with a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_allowed_roots' (read-only) and general file operations, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'dir_ops' for adding directories. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the directory must exist) or exclusive contexts, leaving the AI agent to infer usage patterns.
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 behavioral traits such as conflict detection via expected_mtime and flexible whitespace matching, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention that the tool modifies files in place (destructive behavior) or describe the return value/output, leaving gaps.
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 reasonably concise, using a clear docstring format with Args list. Each parameter description is short but informative. It could be slightly more streamlined, but overall efficient.
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?
Despite covering all parameters, the description lacks information about the tool's return value (especially with an output schema present), error conditions, and the fact that it modifies files (destructive nature). For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 8 parameters in the Args block, including their roles (e.g., 'Required match count' for expected_replacements, 'Conflict detection timestamp' for expected_mtime). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's types and titles.
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 'Search and replace text in a file,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_blocks' or 'file_ops', leaving potential ambiguity about when to use this tool over others.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description lists parameters but does not explain context or scenarios where specific settings (e.g., ignore_whitespace) are advisable.
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. The description adds value by explaining error_handling and mismatch_policy, but it does not disclose whether files are modified in place or if backups are created, nor any side 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 (8 lines) and uses a clear structured args list. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.
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 5 parameters and no schema descriptions; the description adequately explains params but lacks details on return value or whether files are overwritten. The existence of output schema is not reflected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains all 5 parameters, including the enum values for error_handling and mismatch_policy, which is essential for correct usage.
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 action ('Convert files between encodings'), specifies supported encodings (utf-8, gbk, gb2312), and is distinct from sibling tools like read_file or file_ops.
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 (e.g., converting a single file vs batch). Does not explain when to choose error_handling or mismatch_policy options.
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 behavioral transparency. It explains error policy and encoding, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what happens on success/failure. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with an Args section, each parameter listed clearly. It is moderately concise; every sentence adds value, though slightly lengthy but justified by parameter complexity.
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 existence of an output schema (unseen), the description need not cover return values. It covers all three parameters, error handling choices, and encoding options. Lacks prerequisites or limitations but is fairly complete for a batch operation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing each field of 'edits' (file_path, old_string, new_string, etc.) and explaining error_policy and encoding with examples. Adds significant value beyond the 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 'Apply multiple search/replace edits in a single call,' which is specific and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'edit_block' that handles single edits.
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?
The description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_block'. It only implies batching by saying 'multiple', but lacks clear usage context or exclusions.
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 must disclose behaviors. It mentions safety requirements for delete (expected_mtime, confirm_token, allow_nonempty) but lacks details on success/failure returns, side effects, or output format.
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?
Structured as a Python docstring with clear Args: section. Every line is informative, no redundant text. Concise and well-organized.
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?
Covers basic semantics for all parameters and actions, sufficient for correct invocation. Lacks overall context about output schema (though present), error handling, or interaction with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; description adds meaning for all 9 parameters via the Args section, including constraints like 'list only' for depth, format, etc. Fully compensates 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?
Description states 'Directory operations: create, list, or delete', clearly indicating the tool's scope and actions. It distinguishes from sister tool 'file_ops' by specifying directory-specific operations.
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 like 'file_ops' or 'edit_block'. The description only lists parameters without context for selection.
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 full burden. It declares a read operation (return) but lacks details on authentication, side effects, or rate limits. The behavior is straightforward, but the description could be more transparent.
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 one short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient and concise.
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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the meaning of 'allowed directories' or how the whitelist is managed, leaving some room for improvement.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema covers 100% of the parameters (none). With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter details, earning the baseline score of 4.
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 returns the current whitelist of allowed directories, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform file encoding and editing operations.
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 the tool is for retrieving allowed directories, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it or mention any alternatives. The simplicity of the tool partially mitigates this lack.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, disclosing return structure (list of dicts with keys like path, content, mimeType, isImage, encoding, encodingConfidence, error) and encoding auto-detection behavior. It implies read-only, but no mention of limits or performance.
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?
Well-formatted with Args and Returns sections, but slightly verbose. Front-loads purpose, but some lines (like encoding confidence) could be shortened.
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 output schema (described), the description covers input, output, and key behaviors. Missing context about allowed roots (sibling 'list_allowed_roots') but otherwise sufficient for a read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'file_paths' as absolute paths and 'encoding' with common values ('utf-8', 'gbk', 'gb2312') and auto-detection, adding significant meaning 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 reads multiple files in a single call, with a specific verb ('read') and resource ('files'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_file' (singular) and other file operations.
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 versus alternatives (e.g., 'read_file' for single files) or when to specify encoding. The description lacks explicit context for selection.
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 must disclose behavior. It mentions actions and parameters but omits details like error handling, atomicity, or path resolution behavior. The conflict detection timestamp is mentioned but not explained.
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?
Description is front-loaded with a purpose sentence, then uses a clear list format for parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all actions and parameter uses. Missing details like error handling or default behavior, but output schema (present) may supplement. Adequate for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds complete meaning for each parameter: outlines which actions use which parameters, enumerates encoding options, and specifies parameter roles (e.g., source_path for copy/move).
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 'File operations: write, append, copy, move, or delete' with specific verb+resource. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_file and dir_ops by focusing on file manipulation actions.
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?
Description lists actions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., read_file for reading). Usage context is implied but lacks when-not or comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains encoding detection behavior and return value structure (content, mimeType, etc.). It does not disclose error handling or side effects, but covers core behaviors.
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?
Structured with Args/Returns format, but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value; no waste. Could be slightly more concise but still 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?
No output schema, so description includes return keys. Covers all parameters. Lacks mention of error handling or file size limits, but is otherwise complete for a read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning: offset (negative for end), length (max lines), encoding (auto or specific). It clarifies file_path as absolute. Adds significant value beyond bare 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 'Read file content with optional line range', specifying the verb (read) and resource (file content). It distinguishes from siblings like read_files (plural) and get_file_info, showing specific scope.
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 reading files with optional line range but gives no guidance on when to use alternatives like convert_file_encoding or edit_block. No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/TripQi/code-editor'

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