MCP Codebase Symbols Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| analyze_codebaseA | Analyzes a codebase and returns a comprehensive LLM-optimized markdown with all symbols (functions, classes, methods, interfaces, types, etc.) and their file paths. Respects .gitignore rules. Perfect for giving LLMs complete understanding of code structure in a single request. |
| read_codebaseA | Reads the full content of all code files in a directory respecting .gitignore rules and returns in a structured format. WARNING: This tool can generate very large responses, use on smaller directories or specific subdirectories. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have distinct primary purposes: analyze_codebase focuses on extracting symbols and structure for LLM understanding, while read_codebase returns full file content in a structured format. However, both involve reading codebases with .gitignore respect, which could cause some confusion about when to use each, though their descriptions clearly differentiate between symbol analysis vs. full content retrieval.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case naming (analyze_codebase and read_codebase). The verbs 'analyze' and 'read' are distinct yet related, maintaining a predictable and readable convention throughout the tool set.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a codebase symbols domain, as it might lack operations like filtering symbols, updating analyses, or handling specific file types. While the tools cover core reading and analysis, the count is borderline minimal for typical MCP server scopes, which often include 3-15 tools for comprehensive functionality.
The server provides basic read and analyze operations, but there are notable gaps for a symbols-focused domain. Missing tools might include querying specific symbols, updating symbol databases, or handling incremental changes, which could limit agent workflows. However, the existing tools cover fundamental needs for codebase understanding, allowing agents to work around some limitations.