No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 42 tools
The tools cover distinct aspects of code analysis, but there is significant overlap in purpose that could cause confusion. For example, 'analyze_imports', 'get_import_details', and 'get_module_dependencies' all deal with imports, while 'analyze_type_relationships', 'analyze_type_usage', 'get_type_dependencies', and 'build_type_dependency_graph' focus on type analysis. Descriptions help differentiate them, but agents might struggle to choose the optimal tool for a given task due to these overlaps.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (e.g., 'analyze_cross_module_dependencies', 'get_function_details'), which aids readability. However, there are minor deviations such as 'enhanced_function_call_graph' (adjective-based) and 'pattern_match_code' (verb_noun order reversed), slightly disrupting the overall consistency. The naming is largely predictable but not perfectly uniform.
With 42 tools, the count is excessive for a code analysis server, making it heavy and potentially overwhelming for agents. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple import-related tools) without losing functionality. This large number suggests poor scoping and may lead to inefficiency in tool selection and usage.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for code analysis, including dependency tracking, complexity metrics, query execution, and search capabilities across modules, functions, classes, and types. It supports CRUD-like operations for code elements (e.g., get, list, search, analyze) and handles advanced scenarios like pattern matching and graph generation, leaving no obvious gaps for the stated purpose.