project-code-intelligence

by cvandesande

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct in purpose: status overview, individual retrieval of records/findings/flow, semantic/text search, and graph relationships. However, 'get_code_intel_record' and 'related_code_intel' both involve records, but descriptions clarify the difference.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming mixes patterns: 'get_code_intel_record' vs 'get_static_finding' (different ordering), 'search_code_intel_semantic' vs 'search_static_findings' (inconsistent prefix). 'code_intel_status' and 'related_code_intel' lack verb prefixes, breaking the verb_noun pattern.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the count is well-scoped for a code intelligence server covering status, retrieval, search, and relationships. Neither sparse nor bloated.
Completeness4/5
Covers core needs: status, record/finding retrieval, two search modes, and graph edges. Missing explicit listing endpoints, but search can substitute. No clear dead ends for a read-only intelligence server.
Average 2.8/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 60 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?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. There's no mention of safety, permissions, side effects, or output characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks important details that would help the agent, so it does not earn its place.
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?
Given the complexity (16 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to convey search behavior, filtering logic, or return value structure.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 16 parameters, the description adds no meaning to any parameter. No enum values or additional context are provided.
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 action 'embed a query' and 'search embedded code intelligence records', indicating it performs semantic search. However, it could be more precise about what 'embedded' means and how it differs from text search.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like search_code_intel_text or search_static_findings. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
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 description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Check'), but does not explicitly declare side-effect-free behavior, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a 4-param tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with a clear verb and list of resources. It is concise but lacks structure; could benefit from additional sentences or bullet points for clarity. Not overly verbose, but not optimally organized.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and siblings that cover similar ground, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or how it relates to other tools. The agent would need to infer too much.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level details, such as how 'collection', 'repo', 'snapshot_id', or 'include_historical' affect the result. This is a critical gap.
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?
Description clearly states the action 'Check' and lists the resources being checked (snapshot, file, record, edge, and embedding state). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on individual items or specific aspects, but lacks explicit 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_code_intel_record or search_code_intel_semantic. Usage context is implied but not stated, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description is minimal and does not provide behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with front-loaded purpose, but lacks structure such as breaking down search vs list modes. It is concise but could be more organized without adding length.
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?
Given 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain pagination limits, return format, or how parameters interact, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 16 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema parameter names, failing to explain how 'query', 'collection', 'metadata_contains', etc., function together. The baseline for 0% coverage is low, and the description does not compensate.
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 searches or lists code intelligence records, mentioning PostgreSQL full-text search and exact filters. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_code_intel_semantic' by implying a text-based approach, but lacks explicit 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like semantic search or static findings search. There is no mention of prerequisites, excluded cases, or context for full-text vs exact filters.
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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool returns graph edges, but fails to disclose any side effects, read-only nature, permissions needed, or ordering/pagination behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, but lacks front-loading of key details. It mentions record_id and symbol but not other parameters. Language is somewhat vague ('related to'), but length is appropriate.
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 7 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient for correct tool invocation. The AI lacks guidance on required inputs and expected output structure.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only hints at record_id and symbol. It does not explain collection, repo, limit, snapshot_id, or include_historical, leaving the AI without necessary parameter context.
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 returns code intelligence graph edges, specifying it is related to a record id or symbol. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_code_intel_record which retrieves a single record.
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 guidance on when or when not to use this tool. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the AI to infer usage context from the name alone.
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 only states the action and returned fields but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, idempotency, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a fetch tool, read-only hint would be expected but is missing.
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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch'. However, it lacks important details about parameters and usage, which reduces its efficiency for an agent. Slightly better than average due to its brevity.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the parameter 'id', does not define what constitutes a 'finding', and does not provide any context for the return value. An agent would need additional information to correctly invoke this tool.
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?
The input schema has one integer parameter 'id' with no description. The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type definition. It does not explain what the 'id' represents (e.g., finding ID, expected format) or how to obtain it.
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 specific action 'Fetch' and the resource 'one SARIF/static-analysis finding', and lists included fields (rule, locations, code-flow steps). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_static_code_flow' (which likely returns only code flow) and 'search_static_findings' (which lists findings).
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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'search_static_findings' or 'get_static_code_flow'. The use case (fetch a specific finding by ID) is implied but not explicitly stated, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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 and a terse description, important behavioral details are missing, such as how filters combine (AND/OR), pagination behavior, performance considerations, or what happens when no filters are applied. The agent is left to infer behavior from the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be improved by adding a second sentence to mention key behavioral aspects without adding much length.
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?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot effectively use this tool without guessing parameter semantics and expected behavior.
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%, meaning the description must explain parameter meanings, but it does not mention any parameters beyond 'exact filters'. The agent has no information on how parameters like 'limit', 'collection', or 'include_historical' affect the search.
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 searches for SARIF/static-analysis findings with exact filters, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_code_intel_semantic and search_code_intel_text that likely perform semantic or text-based searches.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description lacks context for appropriate use.
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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, error handling (e.g., if finding_id does not exist), or any side effects. The description only says 'Fetch' implying a read operation, but lacks further detail.
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 concise sentence, front-loading the key action and resource. However, it could include more context without becoming verbose, such as noting the optional parameter.
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 output schema or annotations, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain the ordering of steps, the SARIF/CodeQL format, or the role of the optional flow_index. An agent might not know how to properly use flow_index or interpret the response.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It implies finding_id identifies the finding, but does not explain flow_index or the structure of code-flow steps. The schema already defines types and requirements, so the description adds little value.
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 fetches ordered SARIF/CodeQL code-flow steps for a single static-analysis finding, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_static_finding which fetches a finding itself, and search_static_findings which searches for findings.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed. For example, it does not mention that finding_id likely comes from get_static_finding or search_static_findings.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Fetch') and adds that the result includes display content, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a simple fetch, this is minimally adequate.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and efficiently conveys the key details. Every part earns its place.
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?
For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and hints at the response content ('including display content'). Some may argue it is adequate enough to use correctly.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds 'by numeric ID', which is already inferred from the integer type in the schema. It does not explain the meaning of the ID, valid range, or any other details beyond what the schema provides. This adds minimal value.
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 'Fetch', the resource 'code intelligence record', and the method 'by numeric ID', along with the additional feature 'including display content'. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools and other get tools like get_static_code_flow.
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 when the numeric ID is known, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the sibling tools. It gives clear context but lacks exclusions.
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:

[![project-code-intelligence MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cvandesande/project-code-intelligence/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cvandesande/project-code-intelligence)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/cvandesande/project-code-intelligence'

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