codeglance-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAX_FILE_SIZE | No | Max characters per file to analyze | 5000 |
| GEMINI_API_KEY | Yes | Your Google Gemini API key | |
| TIMEOUT_SECONDS | No | API request timeout | 120 |
| CACHE_TTL_SECONDS | No | In-memory cache TTL | 3600 |
| MAX_FILES_PER_ANALYSIS | No | Max files to include in analysis | 50 |
| MAX_CONCURRENT_REQUESTS | No | Concurrent Gemini API calls | 3 |
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 | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| analyze_repositoryA | Execute comprehensive code analysis workflow on a GitHub repository. |
| get_repository_infoA | Get information about a repository and whether it's already cloned locally. |
| list_generated_guidesA | List all generated guide files in the codeglance-analysis/guide directory. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| comprehensive_analysis | Complete repository analysis workflow with all documentation types. |
| quick_overview | Fast repository overview for quick understanding. |
| architecture_review | Architecture-focused analysis for system design understanding. |
| security_audit | Security-focused repository review. |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a distinct purpose: analyzing a repository, checking its status, and listing output guides. No overlap in functionality.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (analyze_repository, get_repository_info, list_generated_guides) making predictions easy.
Three tools are slightly on the lower end for a code analysis server, but they cover the essential workflow without being excessive. The count is reasonable.
The tools cover the core analysis and listing workflow, but lack retrieval of individual guide content, deletion, or configuration options, which are notable gaps.