github-codemunch-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but get_symbol and get_symbols could be confused as they both retrieve symbol source code, differing only in single vs. multiple symbols. The descriptions clarify this, but the naming similarity creates minor ambiguity. Other tools like get_file_outline, get_file_tree, and search_symbols are clearly differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as get_file_outline, index_repo, and search_symbols. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to parse for agents.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose of indexing and querying GitHub repository code. Each tool serves a specific function in the workflow, from indexing and listing repos to retrieving file structures and symbols, without unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core workflows for code indexing and symbol retrieval, including repository management, file exploration, and symbol search. A minor gap exists in update or delete operations for indexed repos, but agents can work around this, and the surface is largely complete for the stated domain.
Average 3.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 252 of 253 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 695 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on September 3, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search scope ('across the entire indexed repository') and return content ('matches with signatures and summaries'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and return value. There is no wasted language, and every sentence earns its place by adding essential information.
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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and return content, but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output specifics. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on behavior and results would be beneficial for an AI agent.
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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the query matches 'symbol names, signatures, summaries, docstrings' (which is covered in the schema's query description) and mentioning 'returns matches,' but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for symbols matching a query across the entire indexed repository.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('symbols'), and scope ('across the entire indexed repository'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_symbol' or 'get_symbols', which appear related.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions returning 'matches with signatures and summaries,' but does not indicate when this search is preferred over sibling tools such as 'get_symbol' (likely for a specific symbol) or 'get_symbols' (possibly for all symbols). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but doesn't specify details such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'indexed' entails (e.g., recently updated vs. all-time). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'indexed' means, the format of the returned list, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a list operation, more context on scope and output would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it could have mentioned implicit constraints (e.g., no filtering options). A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('indexed repositories') with the scope 'all', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_file_tree' or 'search_symbols', which might also involve repository listings, so it misses the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_file_tree' or 'search_symbols', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 the repository must be 'indexed' (a key behavioral constraint) and describes optional filtering. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the file tree returns (e.g., hierarchical structure), potential rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., if repo isn't indexed). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the file tree of an indexed repository') and adds qualifying information ('optionally filtered by path prefix'). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.
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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and filtering but lacks details on return format, error handling, and behavioral constraints. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer these from context, leaving room for misinterpretation. A score of 3 reflects this borderline completeness.
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 both parameters ('repo' and 'path_prefix') with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the optional filtering concept ('optionally filtered by path prefix') but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'file tree of an indexed repository' with optional filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_file_outline' (which likely provides different structural information) and 'get_symbol' (which focuses on specific symbols rather than file structure). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_repos' which lists repositories rather than their file trees.
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 by mentioning 'indexed repository' (suggesting the repo must be indexed first) and 'optionally filtered by path prefix' (suggesting when filtering is appropriate). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_file_outline' or 'search_symbols', nor does it specify prerequisites beyond the repository being indexed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions efficiency ('Efficient for loading related symbols'), which is a useful trait, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling (e.g., for invalid symbol IDs), or what happens if some symbols aren't found. For a tool with 2 required parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds efficiency context. Both sentences earn their place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and efficiency but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output format. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful, but it's not entirely inadequate.
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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('repo' and 'symbol_ids'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get full source code of multiple symbols in one call.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('full source code of multiple symbols'), and scope ('in one call'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_symbol' (singular) or 'search_symbols', which would require a 5.
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 provides implied usage guidance: 'Efficient for loading related symbols' suggests this tool is optimal for batch retrieval when symbols are related. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_symbol' (for single symbols) or 'search_symbols' (for finding symbols), nor does it mention exclusions, so it falls short of a 4 or 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is returned (signatures and summaries), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format details. The description provides basic output information but misses critical operational context.
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, well-constructed sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes essential details about the output format. Every element earns its place in this concise formulation.
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?
For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and output information but lacks sufficient operational context. It doesn't explain what format the symbols are returned in, how errors are handled, or any limitations of the tool. While concise, it leaves important gaps for a tool that presumably returns complex symbol data.
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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (repo and file_path). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for repo beyond 'owner/repo' or edge cases for file_path. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.
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 action ('Get all symbols'), resource ('in a file'), and scope ('with signatures and summaries'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_file_tree (file structure) or get_symbol (single symbol). It uses precise terminology that helps the agent understand exactly what this tool does.
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 extracting symbol information from a specific file, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_symbol (single symbol) or search_symbols (search across files). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the multi-step process (fetching, parsing, extracting, saving) and mentions local storage persistence, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the repository is already indexed, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key steps without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Index a GitHub repository's source code') and every clause adds value, making it highly concise and clear.
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's complexity (indexing with AI options) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It outlines the process and storage outcome but omits details on performance, side effects, or return values. For a mutation tool with no output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness, but it meets minimum viability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 both parameters thoroughly. The description does not add specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since there are only 2 parameters and the schema is comprehensive, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of AI summarization aligns with the use_ai_summaries parameter, slightly enhancing understanding, warranting a 4.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('index', 'fetches', 'parses', 'extracts', 'saves') and resources ('GitHub repository's source code', 'files', 'ASTs', 'symbols', 'local storage'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_file_outline or search_symbols by emphasizing the comprehensive indexing process rather than retrieval or search operations.
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 initial indexing of a repository, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_repos or get_file_tree. It mentions AI summarization as an option, which provides some context, but lacks clear guidance on prerequisites or exclusions compared to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves 'full source code,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, performance limits, or response format. While it adds some context about usage timing, it lacks details on what happens if the symbol_id is invalid or if the repo is inaccessible.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose and usage well, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like what the returned source code includes (e.g., formatting, metadata) or potential errors. It's minimally viable but could be more complete.
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 both parameters (repo and symbol_id) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying symbol_id comes from specific sibling tools, but this is covered in usage guidelines rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Get the full source code') and resource ('a specific symbol'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_file_outline (which provides outlines) and search_symbols (which searches for symbols). It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use after identifying relevant symbols via get_file_outline or search_symbols'), providing clear guidance on prerequisites and distinguishing it from alternatives. This helps the agent understand the workflow and avoid misuse.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![jcodemunch-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jgravelle/jcodemunch-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jgravelle/jcodemunch-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![jcodemunch-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jgravelle/jcodemunch-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jgravelle/jcodemunch-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/jgravelle/jcodemunch-mcp'

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