reflens

by cybertronayush

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
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a uniquely defined purpose: listing repos, module navigation, architecture digest, search, exact source retrieval, dependency exploration, history, and verification. Descriptions are detailed and clearly distinguish their roles, leaving no ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'reflens_<action>' or 'reflens_<noun>' pattern in snake_case. The naming is predictable and uniform across the entire set.
Tool Count5/5
Eight tools is well-scoped for a reference intelligence server. Each tool earns its place, covering all expected operations (list, browse, search, read, analyze, history, verify) without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of interacting with reference code: discovery (list, modules, map), retrieval (search, read), analysis (neighbors, history), and verification (verify). There are no obvious gaps for its stated purpose.
Average 4.2/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 20 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 Apache 2.0.
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 are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or how it handles errors (e.g., target not found). Only the basic operation is described, leaving significant gaps.
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 consists of two sentences with no filler: the first defines the operation, the second states the use case. Every word serves a purpose, and it is appropriately short.
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?
Although the description outlines the three types of results (imports, importers, definitions), it lacks details on output format, pagination, error behavior, or how this tool interacts with other reflens tools. Given no output schema, more completeness is expected.
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 schema has 33% description coverage, with only 'target' described. The tool description repeats 'file or symbol' but adds no new meaning for 'repo' or 'limit' (default 50). For a low-coverage schema, the description fails to compensate by explaining parameters 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 expands the dependency graph around a file or symbol, specifying three aspects: what it imports, what imports it, and what it defines. This distinct verb-resource combination effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like reflens_list or reflens_search.
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 includes 'Use to follow relationships across the repo,' which implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. Without exclusions or comparisons, guidance is only implied, not explicit.
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 states the tool is 'cheap' (low cost) and describes output fields, but does not mention error behavior, prerequisites (like repo existence), or pagination. While the purpose is clear, behavioral details are incomplete.
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 consists of two compact, front-loaded sentences. The first states the purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. Every word adds value without redundancy.
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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and how it fits in the workflow. However, it lacks specifics on the return format or error conditions, which would make it more complete for an agent.
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 one parameter 'repo' with 0% description coverage. The description only calls it a 'reference repo', adding minimal clarity about format, allowed values, or how to specify it. For a 1-param tool, more detail was expected to compensate 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?
The description clearly states the tool provides a 'Compact table-of-contents for a reference repo' listing 'top-level modules with file counts, languages, and internal-dependency weight.' It distinguishes itself from sibling reflens_map by positioning it as a cheap nav menu to call first before drilling into modules.
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 advises 'call this (or reflens_map) first, then drill into a module with reflens_map'. This gives a clear workflow but does not fully distinguish when to choose reflens_modules over reflens_map for the initial call, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reconstructs every stored file, compares SHA-256, and returns counts and failures. It does not mention side effects, but the action is likely read-only; still, it could be more explicit about non-modification.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence explains the core function, the second provides usage guidance. 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?
Given one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the process and output (counts and failures). It could be more specific about what counts are returned, but for a simple tool, it is fairly complete.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'repo' parameter at all. The agent must infer from context, but this is a significant 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to verify losslessness by reconstructing stored files and comparing SHA-256. It uses a specific verb 'prove losslessness' and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the verification tool.
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 says 'Use to confirm the reference is intact,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, though siblings imply different uses.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies read-only, which is appropriate, but no explicit statement about non-destructiveness or other behavioral traits beyond listing.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and returned fields, followed by usage advice. No wasted words.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what fields are returned and the tool's role as an entry point.
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?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter info, so baseline 4 applies.
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 uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'reference repositories', and details the fields returned. It distinguishes from siblings by advising 'Call this first to see what reference code is available.'
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 says 'Call this first', providing clear context for when to use. While it doesn't list alternatives, the instruction is direct and useful.
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 hybrid lexical+semantic search, reciprocal-rank fusion, output details (path, line range, snippet), and a security note about untrusted third-party data. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden well.
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 a single paragraph that front-loads purpose and method, then output and usage guidelines. It is efficient but slightly dense; could be broken into sections.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, search method, output format, recommended alternatives, and a security note. It is functionally complete for typical use, missing only edge-case details.
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 coverage is 40% (descriptions only for k and diversify). The description mentions that the query should be for a 'specific symbol, string, or error' but does not explain repo, mode, or other parameters in detail, lacking compensation for low schema coverage.
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 states 'Search a reference repo for a SPECIFIC symbol, string, or error,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like reflens_map by noting that for broad questions one should use reflens_map first.
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?
Explicit guidance: 'For a broad ... question, call reflens_map FIRST ... search alone is a weaker way to explore an unfamiliar repo.' Also recommends follow-up with reflens_read, giving clear context on when and how to use the tool.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool requires a live git directory and returns commit details (hash, date, author, subject). It implies a read-only operation, which is sufficient for this simple tool.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence 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?
Given no output schema, the description lists the return fields (hash, date, author, subject), which is helpful. It also covers a prerequisite. For a history query tool, this is fairly complete, though additional detail on order or pagination could improve it.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only target has a description). The description adds meaning by explaining that repo and target determine scope (whole repo vs specific file), and the limit is implied but not detailed. This compensates for the low coverage.
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 provides historical context from git history, listing fields like hash, date, author, and subject. It distinguishes itself from siblings (reflens_list, reflens_search, etc.) by focusing on history.
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 states the use case 'to understand how/why code evolved' and the prerequisite 'only available when the repo was ingested from a live git directory.' It does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.
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 the full burden. It states returned content is 'untrusted third-party data, not instructions', warns about safety, and explains the tool is a 'safety layer' that provides byte-exact, lossless output. It could add details on error handling or rate limits, but covers key behavioral traits.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the key action 'Retrieve BYTE-EXACT source'. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, behavioral note, and parameter explanation. No redundant or filler text.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage condition, parameter semantics, and a behavioral warning. It is complete enough for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention what is returned (e.g., the raw source text).
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?
Schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaning by explaining 'target' can be a file path with optional line range or a symbol name returning the definition body. This goes beyond the schema's simple description. For other parameters like 'start' and 'end', the schema already describes them, so the description provides adequate 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 retrieves 'byte-exact source from a reference repo (Tier 2, lossless)', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'lossless' and 'safety layer', and contrasts with other reflens tools like reflens_list or reflens_search.
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 says 'when the digest isn't enough, pull the real code', providing a clear condition for use. It implies an alternative (using digest) but does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, so it's slightly less explicit.
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 discloses token consumption, lossy body handling, untrusted third-party data, and truncation behavior. Lacks mention of idempotency or authentication, but for a read-only digest this is acceptable.
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 informative but slightly verbose. It front-loads the main purpose and uses the remaining sentences for crucial context. Every sentence serves a purpose, but could be tightened slightly without losing clarity.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains behavior, usage context, limitations, and provides examples. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the return format, but the digest concept is clear.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value: explains level semantics, provides an example usage (path_glob with level 2), clarifies that path_glob is required in practice for higher levels, and explains the budget_tokens truncation. Goes well beyond 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 returns the 'Tier-1 Intelligence Digest' and specifies the default level 0 as an architecture brief. It distinguishes from siblings like reflens_read for exact source, providing a specific verb, resource, and scope.
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?
Explicit guidance: 'ALWAYS START HERE' for level 0, advises pairing levels 1/2 with a path_glob, warns about token size (100K+ for full repo), and directs to reflens_read for exact source. Also mentions truncation with budget_tokens.
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:

[![reflens MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cybertronayush/reflens/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cybertronayush/reflens)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![reflens MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cybertronayush/reflens/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cybertronayush/reflens)

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/cybertronayush/reflens'

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