Skip to main content
Glama
liminalpepe

x402-codesearch-mcp

by liminalpepe
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose (indexing code) is clearly distinct from any other, as there are no other tools.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('index_code'), which is consistent and descriptive. There are no other tools to introduce inconsistency.

    Tool Count2/5

    Having only one tool for a 'codesearch' server is severely insufficient. The index tool is only half of the workflow; the search operation is intentionally not exposed, making the tool count a poor match for the apparent scope.

    Completeness1/5

    The core functionality of a codesearch server—searching—is completely missing from the MCP toolset. Only indexing is provided, and the description explicitly notes that search must be done via an external endpoint. This is a critical gap that prevents the tool from fulfilling its stated purpose.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 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

  • Behavior4/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it discloses the exact operation (chunk, embed, upsert), that it is unauthenticated and free, and warns that search is gated and requires external dependencies. It does not mention potential behavior like idempotency or overwriting existing chunks, but overall provides substantial transparency.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently covers the important caveats. The extensive explanation of the external search endpoint and x402 dependency is relevant but somewhat lengthy; still, every sentence contributes to correct usage.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    The description covers the tool's role in a broader pipeline, clarifies limitations (no search), and provides alternative invocation guidance. It omits the return value/response format, but for an indexing tool with no output schema, the provided context is largely sufficient.

    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 coverage is 100% with both repoId and files described in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, though it does explain the end-to-end processing (chunked, embedded, upserted), leaving the schema as the primary documentation.

    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 explicitly states the tool indexes repo files into a specific Worker and makes them semantically searchable, detailing chunking/embedding/upserting. It distinguishes itself from search by stating this tool only calls the free POST /index endpoint.

    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?

    It clearly explains when to use this tool (for indexing) and when not to (for searching), explicitly noting the search endpoint is not exposed and directing users to call POST /search directly with an x402-aware client. It also mentions it is free and unauthenticated.

    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

x402-codesearch-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

x402-codesearch-mcp 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/liminalpepe/x402-codesearch-mcp'

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