Code Understanding MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation3/5
Tools are mostly distinct but there is overlap between get_repo_structure and get_source_repo_map, and between get_repo_file_content and get_repo_structure. The tool list_repository_branches has no description, causing ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming uses a mix of 'get_', 'list_', 'clone_', 'refresh_' but inconsistently uses 'repo' vs 'repository' (e.g., clone_repo vs list_cached_repository_branches). The naming is readable but not fully consistent.
Tool Count4/5
10 tools are a reasonable number for a code understanding server, though some tools have overlapping functionality. The count is slightly above the ideal range but not excessive.
Completeness3/5
The tool surface covers core cloning, caching, and analysis operations, but lacks common features like code search, diff, or blame. The list_repository_branches tool is undescribed, indicating a gap.
Average 3.9/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues 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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool uses complexity metrics and returns importance scores, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any side effects, prerequisites (beyond repo_path matching clone_repo), or error handling.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, a 'Uses...' sentence, and separate Args/Returns sections. It is not overly verbose, though the Args list could be slightly more concise. Overall, each sentence earns its place.
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 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core purpose, most parameters, and return format. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., repo must be cloned), error conditions, and behavior for invalid inputs, leaving gaps for an agent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 5 of 7 parameters (repo_path, files, directories, limit, include_metrics) with defaults and purpose, but omits branch and cache_strategy. The return format adds context, but missing parameter descriptions lower the score.
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 that the tool analyzes and identifies structurally significant files using complexity metrics, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like get_repo_structure (which lists files hierarchically) by focusing on importance scoring.
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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_repo_structure or get_repo_file_content. It implies use for understanding system structure but offers no exclusions or direct comparisons.
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. It details the return structure and what files are analyzed, but omits behavioral details like caching effects, network dependencies, or whether the operation is read-only.
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 structured as a docstring with clear purpose, Args, and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the core functionality. While slightly verbose, every section adds information.
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 no output schema, the description provides a detailed return structure. However, it misses parameter descriptions for two out of three parameters, and lacks usage guidance. Overall adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains only repo_path (Path or URL matching clone_repo). It ignores the branch and cache_strategy parameters entirely, failing to add value beyond the schema.
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 retrieves and analyzes repository documentation files, listing specific types (README, API docs, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_repo_critical_files by focusing solely on documentation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving documentation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_repo_critical_files or get_repo_file_content. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
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. It discloses the return structure (dict with status, message, directories, total_analyzable_files) and behavior of including files. However, it does not mention error handling, caching strategy, or what happens if repo_path is invalid, which are minor gaps.
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?
Description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections, concise without being overly terse. Each sentence adds value, though the Return block could be slightly shortened. Overall efficient.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a good base but lacks details on error handling, caching, and the branch parameter. The return structure helps, but completeness is limited by omitted parameters.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains repo_path, directories, and include_files well, but omits description for branch and cache_strategy (2 of 5 parameters). This partial coverage leaves ambiguity.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'repository structure information', and distinguishes it from siblings that focus on different aspects like cloning or file content. The addition of 'with optional file listings' adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used after clone_repo by mentioning 'Path/URL matching what was provided to clone_repo', but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like get_repo_file_content or get_repo_critical_files. No exclusions or alternatives are given.
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 provided, so description must carry full burden. It describes using git ls-remote --heads, that it is fast and does not clone, and requires network access. It does not mention rate limits or potential error scenarios beyond a generic error field in the output. Could be more exhaustive.
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?
Description is well-structured with sections for critical use case, args, returns, common branch names, and workflow. Though lengthy, every section adds value and is easy to scan. Slightly verbose but justified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, technical method, output format, real-world guidance on branch names, and a typical workflow. An agent can use this tool effectively.
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?
Only one parameter repo_url with no schema description coverage. The description provides an example URL but does not add much meaning beyond the name. For a single required string parameter, this is adequate but minimal.
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?
Clearly states the tool discovers all branches in a remote repo without cloning. The verb 'discover' and resource 'branches in a remote repository' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like 'clone_repo' by emphasizing it does not clone.
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?
Explicitly describes the critical use case of discovering default branch before cloning, and provides a typical workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention 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, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it returns either file content or directory listing, specifies non-recursive listings, and documents return fields. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a read operation this is adequate.
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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Note sections, making it easy to scan. However, it is somewhat verbose; the Returns section could be shortened by referencing the schema, but overall it remains clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description fully documents return values for both file and directory cases. It also explains the non-recursive nature of directory listings, making it complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter (repo_path, resource_path, branch, cache_strategy) in detail, including defaults and optionality, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 it retrieves file contents or directory listings from a repository, using specific verbs and resource context. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_repo_structure by focusing on specific file content rather than structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a note about non-recursive directory listings, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_repo_structure.
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?
Discloses key behaviors: no modification to source, background map building, cache strategy options, and indicates it is a setup operation. Lacks discussion of potential errors or time delays, but otherwise thorough given no annotations.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections (IMPORTANT, Args, Returns, Recommended Workflow, Note) and bullet points, but somewhat lengthy with some repetition; still efficient for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive coverage including return format, recommended workflow, and notes on cache staleness and strategy; fully adequate for a setup tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds detailed meaning for all three parameters (url, branch, cache_strategy), including defaults and usage notes, fully compensating for the schema gap.
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?
Clearly states the tool clones a repository into MCP's cache for analysis, distinguishes from sibling tools like list_cached_repository_branches and list_remote_branches by specifying it is a setup operation required before analysis endpoints.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (before analysis), when not to (if already cached), and recommends checking cache and verifying branch first, with references to alternative tools.
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, the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool scans the MCP cache, shows shared/per-branch entries, only returns repos cloned via clone_repo, and clarifies meaning of empty list. Lacks explicit statement of being read-only but is implied. Overall transparent and informative.
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 relatively long but well-organized: a concise summary, then usage guidance, argument description, return format, workflow, and notes. Every section adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded. Slightly wordy but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter, no output schema, but the description fully specifies the return format (including dictionaries with fields and types), explains typical workflow, and provides notes and interpretations. It is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly without additional context.
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 single parameter repo_url has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds essential context: 'must match exact URL used in clone_repo'. This goes beyond the schema's bare title and helps ensure correct usage.
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 checks if a repository is cached and lists cached branch versions. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'list') and distinguishes from siblings like clone_repo. The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.
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?
Explicitly instructs to use this tool first before clone_repo to avoid redundant clones. Provides a detailed typical workflow with conditional steps (if cached >0 skip clone, else use list_remote_branches and clone_repo). This is exemplary usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description fully covers behavioral aspects. It explains that the tool is asynchronous (returns 'building' status), requires prior cloning, and describes the response format including edge cases like errors. This goes beyond basic input/output expectations.
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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with Args, Returns, and Notes sections. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded purpose is clear. Minor truncation could be done without losing meaning, but current structure aids readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema, asynchronous behavior), the description is remarkably complete. It covers parameter semantics, return format with all fields, and critical notes about prerequisites and background processing. No gaps are evident.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description documents all 6 parameters with detailed explanations (e.g., 'files' optional, 'cache_strategy' defaults to 'shared'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, adding significant meaning beyond the schema itself.
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 it retrieves a 'semantic analysis map' of the repository's code structure, including file hierarchy and code elements. This distinctively separates it from siblings like 'get_repo_structure' (which likely returns only file structure) and 'get_repo_file_content' (which returns file content).
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 description explicitly requires the repository to be cloned via 'clone_repo' and provides guidance on using 'max_tokens' or specific files/directories for large repos. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use this tool (e.g., if only file structure is needed, use 'get_repo_structure').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it performs git pull or local copy, triggers a repository map rebuild, runs in background, does not modify the source repository, and requires prior clone completion. It also notes that the operation is asynchronous and status can be checked via get_repo_map_content. No contradictions.
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 well-structured with clear sections: overview, critical note, recommended workflow, args, returns, and notes. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses bold for emphasis. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Despite length, it is efficient for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description includes a sample return dict with all fields. It covers prerequisites (must be cloned and analyzed), background operation, and status checking. The notes address edge cases like branch switching and cache_strategy matching. The description is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds value by explaining the meaning and constraints of each parameter: repo_path must match original clone, branch switches to specific branch, cache_strategy must match original. It could have elaborated on cache_strategy values (e.g., 'shared' default), but provides sufficient context for correct invocation.
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: 'Update a previously cloned repository in MCP's cache and refresh its analysis.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like clone_repo and get_repo_* by specifying that it operates on already-cloned repositories and performs git pull or directory copy. The verb 'refresh' is specific and appropriate.
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 when-to-use guidance, including a 'RECOMMENDED WORKFLOW' that tells the agent to check cache first (using list_cached_repository_branches) and always refresh before analysis. It warns that failure to refresh leads to stale data, effectively directing the agent away from direct analysis without refresh.
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-code-understanding MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/codingthefuturewithai/mcp-code-understanding/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/codingthefuturewithai/mcp-code-understanding)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-code-understanding MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/codingthefuturewithai/mcp-code-understanding/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/codingthefuturewithai/mcp-code-understanding)

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/codingthefuturewithai/mcp-code-understanding'

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