Session Buddy

by lesleslie

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.14.3
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have overlapping purposes that could cause confusion, particularly between analyze_code and the more specific tools like check_complexity and check_coupling. While descriptions clarify their focus, an agent might struggle to choose between analyze_code (which includes complexity and coupling) and the dedicated tools, leading to potential misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_code, check_complexity, detect_clones), using snake_case throughout. This predictability makes it easy for agents to parse and understand the naming conventions without confusion.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for a code analysis server, covering key aspects like complexity, coupling, clones, and dead code. Each tool appears to earn its place without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides good coverage for code quality analysis, including metrics, clone detection, and dead code. A minor gap exists in areas like code style or security analysis, but agents can likely work around this with the available tools for core workflows.
Average 3.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 273 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 BSD 3-Clause.
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?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, suggesting potential side effects, but the description doesn't explain what gets destroyed or altered (e.g., if analysis modifies files or consumes resources). It adds context about the output format (score range, grade, categories), which is useful since there's no output schema, but fails to address the destructive behavior hinted by annotations.
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 and includes key output details. Every word adds value without redundancy, 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?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and output format adequately. However, given the annotations hint at destructive behavior and the lack of usage guidelines or behavioral details, it leaves gaps in understanding when and how to use the tool safely, especially compared to siblings.
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, clearly documenting the 'path' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate 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 action ('Get') and the resource ('overall code health score') with specific output details (0-100 range, grade, category scores). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a comprehensive health metric rather than specific analyses like complexity or dead code detection, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., analyze_code, check_complexity). The description implies a broad health assessment, but it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.
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?
Annotations provide key behavioral hints (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, etc.), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying the types of analyses performed (complexity, dead code, etc.), but doesn't elaborate on side effects, rate limits, or output format beyond what annotations cover.
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 purpose and lists key analyses without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, making it highly concise 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 complexity (multiple analysis types, destructive hint) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers what analyses are performed but doesn't explain output format, error handling, or how results are returned, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by listing analysis types (e.g., complexity, dead_code) that align with the enum options, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already specifies.
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 performs 'Python code quality analysis' with specific metrics (complexity, dead code, clone detection, coupling), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_complexity or detect_clones, which appear to handle individual analyses.
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 its siblings. It mentions 'comprehensive' analysis but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over individual analysis tools like check_complexity or detect_clones, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
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?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds no additional context about what gets destroyed, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behaviors beyond annotations, but it doesn't contradict them, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.
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 fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy 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 (4 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, which could help the agent use it more effectively in context.
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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or practical usage examples, so it defaults to the baseline score of 3.
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 ('analyze') and resource ('cyclomatic complexity of Python functions'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_code' or 'find_dead_code', which might also analyze Python code metrics, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
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 such as 'analyze_code' or 'check_coupling'. It lacks context about specific scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.
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?
Annotations indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only operation with open-world data. The description adds value by specifying the algorithms used (APTED and LSH), which helps the agent understand computational behavior, but doesn't elaborate on side effects, rate limits, or output format beyond what annotations imply.
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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Detect code clones') and adds technical details (algorithms) that are relevant for agent understanding, making it appropriately sized 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 complexity (destructive analysis with multiple parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the purpose and methods but omits details on output format, error handling, or performance considerations, leaving gaps for the agent to navigate.
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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying analysis of Python code via 'path', which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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: 'Detect code clones' using specific algorithms (APTED tree edit distance and LSH acceleration). It specifies the resource (Python code) and method, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_dead_code' or 'analyze_code' beyond the clone detection focus.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_dead_code' or 'analyze_code'. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and purpose.
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?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true, and idempotentHint: false, suggesting this tool performs mutable, non-idempotent operations with potential side effects. The description adds value by specifying the analysis method ('CFG analysis'), but it doesn't elaborate on what 'destructive' entails (e.g., modifies files, generates reports) or other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs. With annotations covering key aspects, the description provides some context but lacks depth.
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: 'Find unreachable code using Control Flow Graph (CFG) analysis'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and method, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise 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 has annotations (including destructiveHint: true) but no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It specifies the analysis method ('CFG analysis'), which adds context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't explain the output format, potential side effects from the destructive hint, or how results are returned, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's understanding of the full tool behavior.
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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'min_severity' (minimum severity level with default) and 'path' (path to Python code). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'CFG analysis' interacts with these parameters or providing examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate 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: 'Find unreachable code using Control Flow Graph (CFG) analysis'. It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('unreachable code'), and method ('CFG analysis'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_code' or 'detect_clones', which might also analyze code structure, 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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'check_complexity' or 'detect_clones'. Without this context, an AI agent might struggle to choose this tool appropriately in a multi-tool environment.
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?
Annotations provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, and it adds context by specifying the type of analysis (CBO metrics). However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'destructive' means in this context (e.g., whether it modifies files or just analyzes them), which could be useful. No annotation contradiction is present.
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: 'Analyze class coupling (CBO - Coupling Between Objects) metrics.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses no unnecessary words, making it efficient and easy to understand. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to clarifying the tool's function.
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 (analyzing code metrics), annotations cover behavioral aspects like destructiveness and idempotency, and the schema fully documents the single parameter. However, there is no output schema, so the description doesn't explain return values or results, which is a gap. The description is adequate but could benefit from more context on what the analysis entails or outputs.
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 the 'path' parameter clearly documented as 'Path to Python code to analyze.' The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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: 'Analyze class coupling (CBO - Coupling Between Objects) metrics.' It specifies the verb 'analyze' and the resource 'class coupling metrics,' which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'analyze_code' or 'check_complexity,' which prevents a score of 5.
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 doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'analyze_code' or 'check_complexity' for comparison. This lack of usage instructions makes it difficult for an agent to select the right tool.
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:

[![session-buddy MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lesleslie/session-buddy/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lesleslie/session-buddy)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![session-buddy MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lesleslie/session-buddy/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lesleslie/session-buddy)

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/lesleslie/session-buddy'

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