Skip to main content
Glama
jmagly

MCP-Hound

by jmagly
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing repositories, searching code, and getting file context. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent 'hound_' prefix with a verb_noun pattern (hound_file_context, hound_repos, hound_search), making them predictable and easy to differentiate.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the set is well-scoped for a code search server. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the core workflow of code search: listing repositories, searching, and examining context. There are no obvious gaps for the intended purpose.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get extended context', which implies a read operation, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or output behavior. The transparency is insufficient for an AI agent to understand implications.

    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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and a typical use case. Every sentence adds value, and no superfluous information is present.

    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?

    The tool has 4 parameters (3 required) and no output schema. The description does not explain what the output format or content is, nor does it address any constraints like line limits or performance. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

    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?

    All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no new information beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the 'context' parameter or the relationship between parameters. Baseline score of 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 action ('Get extended context') and resource ('a specific line in a file'). It also provides a use case ('understanding code around a search match'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the siblings are distinct in purpose.

    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 hints at when to use the tool ('Useful for understanding code around a search match'), but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives. The sibling tools are listed but not compared, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

    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 must convey all behavioral traits. It states the tool returns matches with deep links, implying read-only search. It does not mention rate limits, authorization needs, or pagination behavior, though parameters hint at it. Adequate but not detailed.

    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, concise sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the core action and result, making it immediately understandable.

    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 6 parameters and no output schema. The description broadly describes the return (matching files, lines, deep links) but lacks specifics on result structure or pagination handling. Satisfactory for a search tool given param descriptions, 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?

    The input schema already covers all 6 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add significant new meaning beyond stating regex search and returns. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic load.

    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 tool name 'hound_search' and description clearly indicate it searches code across repositories using regex, returning matching files and lines with deep links. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'hound_file_context' (file details) and 'hound_repos' (repository listing).

    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 using this tool to search code, provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer siblings or conditions under which not to use it. Minimal contextual advice beyond stating the search capability.

    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 carries full burden. It transparently states the action (list all repos) and output (names and URLs). While minimal, it is clear and not misleading.

    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 that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word adds value.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns.

    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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for no parameters.

    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 verb 'List' and the resource 'repositories indexed by Hound code search', and specifies the return value (names and URLs). It is distinct from sibling tools 'hound_file_context' and 'hound_search'.

    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 stating what the tool does, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives or any exclusions. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.

    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

mcp-hound MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-hound 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/jmagly/mcp-hound'

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