Skip to main content
Glama
crisschan

MCP-Repo2LLM

by crisschan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to MCP-Repo2LLM

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Code Scanner Server

      Ixe1
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server that scans codebases to extract structural information (classes, functions, etc.) with flexible filtering options and outputs in LLM-friendly formats.
      1
      2
      GPL 3.0

    • repo-context-mcp

      nduc99911
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server that helps AI coding agents understand a repository by providing lightweight tree/map, code search, and token-budgeted context packing tools without dumping the entire monorepo into the prompt.
      3
      2 npm
      105
      MIT

    • reposynapse

      Jul879n
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Universal MCP server that analyzes any codebase and provides structured context to AI assistants. Dynamic, accurate, and token-efficient.
      18
      7 npm
      MIT

    • SRC (Structured Repo Context)

      kvnpetit
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An MCP server and CLI tool that transforms codebases into AI-ready context through semantic search, call graph analysis, and incremental indexing. It enables AI assistants to perform hybrid vector and keyword searches to understand complex repository structures and cross-file relationships.
      35
      54 npm
      1
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    C2.9/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting a different repository source: GitHub, GitLab, and local repositories. The descriptions explicitly differentiate them by source, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to use for each scenario.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' prefix and descriptive suffixes indicating the repository source. The naming is uniform and predictable across all three tools.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for its apparent scope of repository code retrieval. While it covers three repository sources, the functionality is limited to a single 'get' operation without supporting related actions like searching, filtering, or managing repositories.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for repository interaction. It only provides retrieval operations without any create, update, delete, search, or management capabilities. Even within retrieval, there are no options for filtering, pagination, or handling different file types beyond returning 'code as text'.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources