Skip to main content
Glama
huawang1258

semantic-code-mcp

by huawang1258
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possible ambiguity. Any agent will know exactly which tool to use for semantic code search.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool name 'codebase_search' is descriptive and follows a clear verb_noun pattern. Consistency is perfect with only one tool.

    Tool Count3/5

    One tool is borderline thin for a code-related server, but it fits a focused semantic search purpose. The count is minimal but not inappropriate given the specific domain.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers semantic search well, but lacks complementary tools like file retrieval or code structure queries. Notable missing operations limit its utility for broader code workflows.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 21 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter behavior but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies state, rate limits, or side effects. For a search tool, it likely performs only reads, but that is not explicitly stated.

    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 starts with a concise purpose line, followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Each sentence serves a clear purpose, and there is no redundant information. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

    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?

    The tool has an output schema (from context signals) so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., valid directory_path on server), performance implications, or when to use this tool over others. Given moderate complexity, it is minimally complete but has gaps.

    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?

    With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds substantial value by explaining each parameter: 'information_request' as natural language query, 'path_filter' with glob matching logic, 'include_related' default, 'top_n' defaulting to SCM_TOP_N. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

    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 '语义检索代码库，返回最相关的代码片段', which is a specific verb-resource combination indicating semantic search of a codebase. Despite no sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

    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. With no sibling tools, the description could still indicate scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., requires a local codebase path). The parameter descriptions explain what they do but not when the tool is appropriate.

    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

semantic-code-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

semantic-code-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/huawang1258/semantic-code-mcp'

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