Claude Code Starter Kit MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| command_detailed_reviewB | Structured code review with checklist and severity ratings |
| command_docsC | Generate or update documentation for code |
| command_fix_bugsC | Detect and fix common bugs, anti-patterns, and code issues |
| command_monitorC | Monitor repository health, track issues, and identify maintenance tasks |
| command_refactorB | Safely refactor code with test verification |
| command_security_checkC | Scan for security vulnerabilities in code and dependencies |
| command_test_coverageC | Analyze test coverage and generate tests for uncovered code |
| command_testB | Generate comprehensive unit tests for files. Use /test or /test --changed |
| agent_bug_hunterC | Expert at detecting bugs, anti-patterns, and potential issues |
| agent_code_reviewerC | Expert code reviewer for quality and maintainability |
| agent_security_auditorD | Security expert for vulnerability detection and remediation |
| agent_test_engineerC | Specialized agent for comprehensive test generation |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 12 tools
There is overlap between agent tools (e.g., agent_bug_hunter, agent_code_reviewer) and command tools (e.g., command_fix_bugs, command_detailed_review) that cover similar concerns. However, descriptions differentiate detection vs. action, so some ambiguity remains.
Tools follow two consistent prefixes ('agent_' and 'command_') and use snake_case throughout. While the pattern is clear, the split between role-based and action-based naming could be more uniform.
With 12 tools covering code review, bug detection, security, testing, documentation, refactoring, and monitoring, the count is well-scoped for a comprehensive code quality assistant.
The toolkit covers the full lifecycle of code quality: analysis (agents), fixes, tests, documentation, monitoring, and refactoring. No obvious gaps for its stated purpose.