Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
claude-init

claude-init

by horiastanxd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

analyze_project

Examine a repository's tech stack, commands, structure, environment variables, and Git information, outputting a structured JSON report.

Instructions

Analyze a repository (tech stack, commands, structure, env vars, git) and return structured JSON.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to the project directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or makes network calls. 'Analyze' could imply mutation, but this is unclear.

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 one sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could benefit from a more structured format for better readability.

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 analyzes multiple aspects and has no output schema, the description lacks details on the returned JSON structure, prerequisites (e.g., git installed), and behavioral constraints.

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?

The input schema has full coverage for the single parameter 'path' with a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool analyzes a repository, listing specific aspects (tech stack, commands, structure, env vars, git) and the output format (structured JSON). It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_context_files and generate_context_files.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The description lacks context for decision-making.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools