mcp-repo-health
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
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| score_repoB | Score a local repository for README, license, tests, TypeScript, and CI hygiene. |
| list_hygiene_gapsA | Return only the failing hygiene checks for a local repository. |
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 related but distinct: score_repo provides an overall health score, while list_hygiene_gaps returns only the failing checks. An agent could confuse them if it wants a summary versus details, but the descriptions clarify the difference.
Both tools use a verb_noun pattern (score_repo, list_hygiene_gaps), which is consistent. The second tool's noun phrase is more descriptive than the first, but the pattern is still predictable.
Two tools is on the thin side for a repository health server, but the scope is narrow and the two tools cover the core need. It feels slightly minimal but not unreasonable.
The server covers scoring and listing gaps, but lacks operations like getting detailed check results, generating reports, or fixing/ignoring specific hygiene issues. The core workflow is present, but there are notable gaps for a health-check domain.