Skip to main content
Glama
fl0w1nd

repomap-mcp

by fl0w1nd
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: repo_map provides a high-level structural overview via PageRank, while search_identifiers finds specific code symbols. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can easily choose the right one.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern (repo_map, search_identifiers) with clear verbs describing the action and nouns describing the target. The naming is predictable and descriptive.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin but not inadequate given its focused purpose on codebase mapping and identifier search. The scope is narrow enough that two tools may suffice, though additional tools like file listing or definition retrieval could be expected.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers two core needs (structural overview and symbol search), but is missing common operations like viewing file contents, getting code definitions at a point, or listing references for a symbol. An agent may hit dead ends if it needs more detailed code navigation beyond identifiers.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed 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

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions AST analysis and returning definitions/references, but does not disclose performance characteristics, failure modes, supported languages, or prerequisites. The behavioral transparency is insufficient for a tool with 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.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single sentence (two clauses) that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is an exemplary model of conciseness.

    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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and a sibling tool, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return value structure, limitations, or edge cases. It is adequate for a straightforward search tool but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand invocation behavior.

    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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context that the search is for 'code identifiers' and returns 'definitions and references', but this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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 verb 'Search', resource 'code identifiers', and method 'Tree-sitter AST analysis'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'repo_map' by focusing on identifiers rather than repository structure. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

    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 searching code identifiers but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'repo_map'. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

    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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the core mechanism (PageRank over reference graphs) and key behaviors like focusFiles being excluded from output while getting a 20x boost. It could be more transparent about performance implications (e.g., parsing large repos) or caching behavior beyond the forceRefresh parameter.

    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 reasonably concise at two sentences, front-loading the core mechanism and purpose. It efficiently covers key use cases without unnecessary detail. Minor improvement could be made by adding a brief sentence about output format or limitations, but the current structure is effective.

    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 moderate complexity (9 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behaviors. The schema covers parameter descriptions well, reducing the burden on the description. Without an output schema, the description could be more explicit about what the map contains (e.g., code definitions, file paths) but remains sufficient.

    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?

    With 89% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. Most parameters have clear descriptions in the schema, but the description adds value by explaining the ranking boost multipliers (e.g., 'x20 boost' for focusFiles, 'x5' for priorityFiles, 'x10' for priorityIdentifiers) and the exclusion behavior of focusFiles. This extra context justifies the baseline score but does not significantly exceed 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 tool generates a 'ranked repository map of code definitions via PageRank over cross-file reference graphs.' It specifies the primary purpose (understanding codebase structure, discovering entry points, finding related code) and distinguishes itself from sibling 'search_identifiers' by emphasizing ranking and graph analysis rather than simple 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 implies usage contexts like 'understanding codebase structure' and 'finding code related to specific files or identifiers,' giving clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare to 'search_identifiers' as an alternative, which would elevate it to a 5.

    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

repomap-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

repomap-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/fl0w1nd/repomap-mcp'

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