MCP File Context Server

by bsmi021

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'getFiles' and 'read_context' both involve retrieving file content, which could cause confusion. 'generate_outline' and 'get_profile_context' are clearly separate, and 'set_profile' and 'get_chunk_count' are specialized utilities.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent with mixed conventions: 'generate_outline' and 'read_context' use snake_case, while 'getFiles' uses camelCase. Verb styles vary (e.g., 'generate' vs. 'get' vs. 'read'), and 'get_chunk_count' includes an underscore while 'getFiles' does not, creating a chaotic pattern.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for a file context server, covering core operations like file retrieval, analysis, and profile management without being overwhelming or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers key file context operations: retrieving files, analyzing code, generating outlines, and managing profiles. A minor gap exists in update or delete operations for profiles or contexts, but agents can likely work around this for the server's purpose.
Average 3.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what 'repository context' includes (e.g., files, metadata), or any rate limits, leaving significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more informative given the lack of other details, but it earns its place by being clear and direct.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'repository context' returns, how it relates to 'current profile settings', or provide enough detail for an agent to understand the tool's full scope and usage in context with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps.
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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the 'refresh' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but with only one well-documented parameter, the baseline is high, and the description doesn't detract from this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get repository context based on current profile settings', which provides a general purpose (verb+resource). However, it's vague about what 'repository context' entails and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'read_context' or 'getFiles', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.
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 'read_context' or 'getFiles' is provided. The description implies usage for obtaining context related to profiles, but lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools, offering minimal direction.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates an outline and supports specific languages, but it doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data, text), whether it handles errors for unsupported files, or if there are performance considerations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds language support. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the main function. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the language support into the first sentence, but it's still highly effective.
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's complexity (analyzing code structure) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the generated outline includes (e.g., depth, formatting) or how errors are handled, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly. With no structured data to fill these gaps, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify path formats or constraints). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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's purpose: 'Generate a code outline for a file, showing its structure (classes, functions, imports, etc).' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('code outline'), and scope ('file'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getFiles' or 'read_context', which might also involve file operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 provides minimal usage guidance: it mentions supported languages (TypeScript/JavaScript and Python), which implies when to use it for those file types. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'getFiles' (which might list files) or 'read_context' (which might read file contents), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of comparative context limits its helpfulness.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('retrieve') and output ('content and metadata'), but lacks critical behavioral details such as permissions required, error handling for invalid paths, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with files.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and output without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, error handling, or output structure, which are crucial for a file retrieval tool. The agent would need to guess about these elements.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'filePathList' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying retrieval of multiple files, but doesn't provide additional semantics like path format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('Retrieve multiple files') and resources ('files by their paths'), and specifies what it returns ('content and metadata for each file'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_context' or 'get_profile_context', which might also involve file/content retrieval 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or compare it to sibling tools like 'read_context' or 'get_profile_context', leaving the agent 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Set the active profile') but doesn't reveal important behavioral traits: whether this is a persistent configuration change, if it affects subsequent operations, what permissions are required, if there are side effects, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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 extremely concise - a single 7-word sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and purpose. This is an example of efficient communication where every word earns its place.
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 that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'Set') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'active profile' means in the system context, how this affects other operations, what the expected outcome is, or provide any error handling information. For a tool that likely changes system state, more context is needed.
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 description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'profile_name' is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid profile name, where profiles come from, or provide examples.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('active profile'), and indicates the functional outcome ('for context generation'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_profile_context' or explain how 'set_profile' relates to other profile/context 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_profile_context' or 'read_context'. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is needed, or what happens if no profile is set. The phrase 'for context generation' hints at a purpose but doesn't establish clear usage boundaries.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's role in planning for 'read_context' and that parameters should match, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on performance characteristics, error handling, or output format, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool with no annotation support.
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 highly concise and well-structured with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word serves a clear purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It clarifies the tool's purpose and usage relative to 'read_context', but lacks details on output format or error scenarios. With 100% schema coverage, it provides adequate context for basic use, though more behavioral transparency would enhance completeness.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying parameter alignment with 'read_context', but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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's purpose: 'Get the total number of chunks that will be returned for a read_context request.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('total number of chunks'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_context' by focusing on pre-calculation rather than content retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this tool FIRST before reading content to determine how many chunks you need to request.' It directly addresses when to use this tool (before 'read_context') and why (to determine chunk count), offering clear context for its application relative to alternatives.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job disclosing behavioral traits: it specifies automatic directory exclusions (version control, Python artifacts, JavaScript/Node.js, IDE/editor files), describes chunking behavior for large files, and explains the relationship with get_chunk_count. It doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or authentication needs, but provides substantial operational context.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bulleted list of exclusions is efficient, and the guidance about get_chunk_count is necessary context. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence earns its place by providing essential operational information that isn't in the schema.
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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, chunking behavior, filtering logic) and no annotations/output schema, the description does an excellent job covering operational context. It explains the automatic exclusions, chunking workflow, and relationship with sibling tools. The main gap is lack of information about return format/content, but this is reasonable given the tool's primary focus on reading operations.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about chunkNumber usage ('Use with get_chunk_count to handle large files/directories') and implies filtering through the automatic exclusions list, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('read and analyze code files') and resources ('code files'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning advanced filtering/chunking capabilities and automatic directory exclusions. It goes beyond a simple read operation by describing analysis and filtering features.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it mentions using 'get_chunk_count first to determine total chunks' for large files/directories, and the automatic exclusion list helps users understand when this tool is appropriate versus when manual filtering might be needed elsewhere. It also distinguishes from 'getFiles' by focusing on content reading rather than just file listing.
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:

[![mcp-file-context-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bsmi021/mcp-file-context-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bsmi021/mcp-file-context-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-file-context-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bsmi021/mcp-file-context-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bsmi021/mcp-file-context-server)

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/bsmi021/mcp-file-context-server'

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