senior-sde-mcp-guard
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 | {
"listChanged": true
} |
| logging | {} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| extensions | {
"io.modelcontextprotocol/ui": {}
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| check_code_qualityA | Audits code against Senior Staff Software Engineer AST rules (Class size, Complexity, Parameter count, Type hints, Secret leakage, Bare exceptions). |
| audit_fileA | Reads an existing workspace file from disk and audits it against Senior SDE AST rules. |
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 2 tools
The two tools are distinct in their input: check_code_quality presumably audits code provided directly, while audit_file reads a file from disk. However, both perform the same core action (auditing against AST rules), causing minor potential for confusion if the input types are not obvious.
Both tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (check_code_quality, audit_file). The verbs are different but semantically similar, and the structure is consistent, making the naming predictable and easy to parse.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for its stated purpose of code quality auditing. It covers direct code and files, but the minimal count suggests a limited scope that may not handle broader workflows.
The domain is code quality auditing, and the tools cover auditing code snippets and files. However, there is no tool to list or retrieve the AST rules, adjust audit scope (e.g., directories), or provide remediation guidance, leaving notable gaps in the workflow.