Code Index MCP

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.2.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: checking vs creating temp directory, configuring vs getting watcher status, clearing vs getting settings, finding files vs searching code vs getting file summary, refreshing index vs refreshing search tools. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores, e.g., check_temp_directory, get_file_summary, set_project_path. The verbs are diverse but each clearly indicates the action.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools covering directory management, settings, file watching, file finding, code search, and index refresh, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. No tool feels redundant or missing.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key operations: setting project path, finding files, searching code, getting file summaries, refreshing index, and managing settings/watcher. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to list indexed files or get index status, but the core workflows are supported.
Average 3.6/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Configure settings' without mentioning side effects, permissions, persistence, or what changes take effect. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, so it is concise. However, it is overly minimal and lacks necessary structure or detail, making it less than ideal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or prerequisites for usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (enabled, debounce_seconds, additional_exclude_patterns). It does not explain what each parameter does or how they affect the file watcher.
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's purpose: 'Configure file watcher service settings.' It uses a specific verb (configure) and resource (file watcher service settings), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_file_watcher_status.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to configure vs check status. No exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose important behaviors such as whether the path must exist, if it overwrites previous settings, or side effects on indexing. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It could be longer to include parameter guidance while remaining efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description should still cover path validity and behavioral impact. It lacks these details, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to detail the 'path' parameter. The description only repeats the parameter name without adding format, constraints (e.g., absolute/relative), or validation rules.
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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'base project path for indexing'. It specifies the tool's core function and distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_temp_directory' or 'clear_settings'.
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, nor does it specify conditions or prerequisites. An AI agent would lack context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Clear all settings and cached data', implying a destructive operation, but does not specify irreversible effects, required permissions, or what exactly is cleared (application-level, project-level?). This is insufficient for a potentially impactful tool.
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 sentence with no extraneous words. It's as concise as possible while conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must compensate but fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain the scope of 'all settings', potential side effects, or how it interacts with other tools. For a potentially destructive action, this is incomplete.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter-level details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since the zero-param case is inherently simple and clear.
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 verb 'Clear' and the resource 'all settings and cached data', making the action obvious. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools that also deal with settings (e.g., get_settings_info), though the sibling list includes distinctly different operations. A bit more specificity about which settings could improve clarity.
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. The description simply states what it does without any context about prerequisites, consequences, or scenarios where it is appropriate. This leaves the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior. It only implies a read operation but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or return behavior.
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 with no superfluous information, earning full marks for efficiency.
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 no output schema and a simple tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks detail on what constitutes 'project settings' or the return values.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable under baseline scoring rules.
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 it retrieves project settings information, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_temp_directory' or 'clear_settings'.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Check' is vague; it doesn't specify whether the tool returns a status, contents, or modifies anything. Read-only behavior is implied but not confirmed.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It explains the purpose but lacks details on what the check returns or how to interpret results, leaving some incompleteness.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the context of the temporary directory (used for storing index data), which goes beyond the empty schema.
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 checks the temporary directory for index data. The verb 'check' and resource 'temporary directory' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling 'create_temp_directory'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_temp_directory'. There is no indication of prerequisites or conditions under which checking is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a write operation ('Create'), but with no annotations, the burden is high. It fails to disclose critical behavior: is it idempotent? What happens if the directory already exists? Are there any side effects or permissions required? This lack of detail hampers safe invocation.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context about its role in the workflow (e.g., used before indexing) and error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this is a viable but incomplete description.
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?
There are no parameters, so per the guidelines the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it is clear that the tool requires no input.
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 action (create) and the resource (temporary directory for storing index data), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_temp_directory (which checks existence) and clear_settings (which clears settings). It is specific and actionable.
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, such as prerequisites (e.g., should be called before refresh_index) or conditions (e.g., only once). The agent receives no contextual hints about typical usage flow.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'for supported languages' but does not disclose behavior for unsupported languages, error handling, or performance implications. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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?
Description is brief and uses a bullet list for clarity. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more concise by combining some elements.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable outline of the summary contents. However, it lacks details on supported languages, error cases, or whether it works on directories.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate. It describes the tool's output but does not elaborate on the 'file_path' parameter beyond the schema. No details on path format, allowed locations, or restrictions.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves a summary of a specific file, listing specific data points like line count and function definitions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_files and search_code_advanced by focusing on summary extraction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies use when a file summary is needed, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like search_code_advanced. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'efficient directory tree traversal' and cross-platform slash handling but omits details like search scope (e.g., whether hidden files are included) and whether the traversal is recursive by default.
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 well-structured with sections for primary function, use cases, pattern notes, args, and returns. It is concise yet informative, though the 'Use when' list could be slightly more compact.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose and usage adequately. However, it does not specify the search scope (e.g., project root) or behavior regarding hidden files, leaving some gaps for the agent.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with examples (e.g., '*.py', 'README.md') and explains that the pattern supports full path and filename-only matching. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema definition, though more detail on glob syntax would improve it.
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's purpose: finding files matching a glob pattern using efficient directory tree traversal. The verb 'Find' and resource 'files matching a glob pattern' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like search_code_advanced which searches code content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'Use when' section provides clear scenarios for using the tool, such as looking by pattern or checking existence. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or explicit differentiation from sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Get' which implies read-only, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or disclose any other behaviors like authentication needs or rate limits.
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 sentence with no waste; it is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool is simple with no parameters or output schema, but the description could be more complete by explaining what 'statistics' entails or how to interpret the status. Given the sibling tools, it provides adequate but not rich context.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details; baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clear resource 'file watcher service status and statistics', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'configure_file_watcher' which implies configuration rather than retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving status, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context are given.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states the action (re-detect) and the benefit (making new tools available). No hidden behaviors are implied, but it could mention that it scans PATH or specific directories.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and a simple action, the description is complete. It tells what, when, and why. No output schema is needed.
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?
There are no parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose and context, which is sufficient. A more detailed explanation of what 're-detect' entails could push it higher.
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 uses a specific verb 're-detect' and a clear resource 'available command-line search tools'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_files and search_code_advanced, which perform actual searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a concrete use case: after installing a new tool like ripgrep. It implies this is not needed during normal operation, but does not explicitly list when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: automatic selection among ugrep, ripgrep, ag, grep; tool-specific behavior for fuzzy and regex patterns; safety validation to prevent ReDoS; and how file_pattern globs are handled consistently. This goes beyond what schema provides.
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 well-structured: first line states purpose, then bullet-like parameter explanations. However, parameter descriptions are verbose, especially file_pattern and fuzzy, which could be more concise. The essential info is front-loaded, but overall length could be trimmed without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description thoroughly covers all aspects: parameter meanings, automatic tool selection, edge cases (fuzzy tool differences, regex auto-detection, safety validation), and return type (dictionary with results or error). It is fully sufficient for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.
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 has 0% coverage, so description must carry full weight. It adds detailed semantics for each parameter: pattern (literal/regex), case_sensitive, context_lines, file_pattern (glob handling per tool), fuzzy (tool differences), regex (auto-detection). While thorough, some repetition (e.g., file_pattern details repeated) prevents a perfect score.
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's purpose: 'Search for a code pattern in the project using an advanced, fast tool.' It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'code pattern', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_files' (which likely searches by file name) by emphasizing 'advanced' and 'fast' and automatic tool selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use this tool (searching code patterns, automatic selection of best command-line tool) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives. However, it implicitly differentiates from siblings by describing its advanced nature, so nearly comprehensive.
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?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs full re-indexing for accuracy, returns success with file count, and is a backup for file watcher. Could mention whether the operation is synchronous or has performance implications, but current detail is sufficient.
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?
Description is well-structured with a clear header, bullet list for usage, important notes, and return information. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, behavioral notes, and return value. It is complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, so no param info needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4. Description adds value by explaining behavior, but no parameter semantics required.
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?
Description clearly states the tool refreshes the project index when files change, with a specific verb 'refresh' and resource 'project index'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_files and get_file_watcher_status by positioning itself as a manual complement to the automatic file watcher.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: file watcher disabled, after large operations, when find_files outdated, and for troubleshooting. Also notes when not to rely on it (when file watcher works) and gives actionable guidance for LLMs.
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:

[![code-scope-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/marksolly/code-scope-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/marksolly/code-scope-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![code-scope-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/marksolly/code-scope-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/marksolly/code-scope-mcp)

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/marksolly/code-scope-mcp'

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