Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-codemap

mcp-codemap

by breca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

map

Returns the codebase structure as a compact overview showing files, entities, signatures, and relationships in a single call to orient developers.

Instructions

Returns the codebase structure as a compact map. Files, entities, signatures, and relationships in one call. Start here for orientation.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "map"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNoDirectory or file path prefix to limit output (e.g., "src/api")
max_depthNoMax directory nesting depth
detailNoOutput density. "outline": files + entity counts. "names": entity names/kinds/lines + docstrings on top-level entities. "signatures" (default): full signatures + docstrings + imports/used-by. "full": signatures + cross-file relationships.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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 discloses that the tool returns a compact map with multiple elements but lacks details on behavior like read-only indication, performance, or relationship specifics.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and contents, succinct and without waste.

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 three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate for high-level understanding but lacks details on return format, typical examples, or error conditions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value beyond stating it returns a 'compact map', not enriching parameter semantics.

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 the tool returns a codebase structure map including files, entities, signatures, and relationships. It positions itself as an orientation tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query' or 'reindex'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Start here for orientation' provides clear usage context for initial exploration. No explicit when-not or alternative conditions are given, but the intention is well conveyed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools