Skip to main content
Glama
habibafaisal

wherewent

by habibafaisal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

Related Servers

Alternatives to wherewent

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Synapse MCP

      myelixlabs
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Standard coding agents waste 70% of context tokens re-reading raw files with shell grep. Synapse-MCP indexes your codebase into a sub-millisecond local AST graph—giving Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf exact caller trees, 60% lower token spend, and zero-hallucination refactoring.
      2
      14
      1
      MIT

    • Reporecall

      proofofwork-agency
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Zero-tool-call codebase intelligence for Claude Code and MCP clients. Automatically injects the right code context, functions, callers, and call chains, before the LLM starts thinking. Replaces 4-6 grep/read round-trips with a single 5ms hook injection, cutting token usage by 3-8x.
      88 npm
      37
      MIT

    • mcp-code-context

      achatainga
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables LLMs to efficiently read, write, and refactor code using precise AST-based operations, reducing token usage and context window waste.
      25
      27 npm
      3
      MIT
    • Boyce by boyce-io

      Boyceofficial

      boyce-io
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Give AI agents structured database intelligence. Deterministic SQL, NULL trap detection, EXPLAIN pre-flight. MIT licensed.
      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

    A4.5/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: analyze_job executes a job and returns analysis, while explain_run interprets pre-existing saved output. No overlap or ambiguity exists between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern: analyze_job and explain_run. The naming is consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the set feels thin for a server, but the scope is narrowly focused on analyzing slow jobs. The count is borderline for a specialized utility, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

    Completeness4/5

    The core workflow of running an analysis and explaining saved results is covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for listing or comparing runs), but these are workaroundable and not critical for the primary purpose.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources