Skip to main content
Glama
lucidopus

codeglance-mcp

by lucidopus
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

analyze_repository

Clone a GitHub repository, analyze it with AI, and generate six documentation files covering overview, structure, file insights, architecture, quick-start, and master analysis.

Instructions

Execute comprehensive code analysis workflow on a GitHub repository.

Clones the repository, analyzes it with Gemini AI, and generates 6 documentation
files covering overview, structure, file insights, architecture, quick-start, and
a master analysis.

Args:
    repo_url: GitHub repository URL to analyze
    working_directory: Directory where to create analysis folder (default: current directory)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_urlYes
working_directoryNo.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
successYesWhether analysis completed successfully
messageYesStatus message
output_filesYesList of generated documentation files
repository_pathYesPath to the cloned repository
gemini_availableYesWhether Gemini API was available for analysis
context_file_contentNoAI context file content generated from the analysis. You MUST save this as your context file at the ROOT of the analyzed project (e.g. CLAUDE.md for Claude Code, .cursorrules for Cursor, .windsurfrules for Windsurf, .github/copilot-instructions.md for Copilot). Do NOT modify any other files in the project — only create this one context file.

Tool Definition Quality

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: cloning, AI analysis, and file generation. However, it omits potential side effects (disk usage, network usage, time to complete) and any required permissions (e.g., GitHub token). It does not contradict annotations as none exist.

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 three sentences: first sentence states purpose, second explains the process, third lists arguments. It is front-loaded, has no fluff, and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidance, prerequisites, and behavioral details like time or disk impact. With an output schema present, return values are not needed, but additional context for a complex tool would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description adds clear semantics: repo_url is the GitHub URL, working_directory is the folder for analysis output with a default of '.'. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool executes a comprehensive code analysis workflow, cloning a repository and generating 6 specific documentation files. It distinguishes from siblings like get_repository_info and list_generated_guides by describing the full analysis process and specific outputs.

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 like get_repository_info or list_generated_guides. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or limitations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

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/lucidopus/codeglance-mcp'

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