codequality-mcp
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": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| evaluateA | Evaluate a file or directory against the deterministic quality bar. Returns findings, per-dimension scores, hotspots, and a verdict. With git_range (for example main..HEAD) findings on touched lines are marked in_scope; scores always cover the whole target. Restricting dimensions leaves the others unscored, so the verdict is incomplete. |
| explain_ruleB | What a rule checks, why it matters, and how to fix it (e.g. design:CYCLE, ruff:F821). |
| list_analyzersB | Health check: each analyzer tool version and availability. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| review | Evaluate, then return the report with every checklist and the review instructions. |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| rubric_index | Overview of the five dimensions and how to use the checklists. |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: evaluate runs the quality analysis, explain_rule provides details on a specific rule, and list_analyzers checks analyzer health. No overlap or ambiguity in selection.
Two tools follow a verb_noun pattern (explain_rule, list_analyzers), while evaluate is a bare verb. This minor deviation is still readable and consistent in snake_case, but prevents a perfect score.
Three tools are well-scoped for a focused code-quality analysis server; each tool (evaluate, explain_rule, list_analyzers) earns its place without redundancy.
The surface covers running evaluations, explaining rules, and checking analyzer availability, but lacks a way to list all rules or dimensions directly. This minor gap is workable via evaluate findings, but agents cannot discover rules upfront.