symfony-php-mcp

by maschmann

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: v0.1.4
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: Twig analysis, index building, route finding, symbol lookup, project overview, service listing, file reading, and regex search. No overlaps or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_twig, build_index, find_route) and use snake_case uniformly, making the set predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server covers the essential operations for Symfony project inspection without being excessive or sparse. The count is well-scoped for its purpose.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core read/inspection tasks (routes, services, symbols, code, Twig), but lacks a tool to list all Twig templates or other structural elements, a minor gap.
Average 4.6/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
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
- Last stable release on March 25, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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?
Discloses that it reads specific files (composer.json, symfony.lock, .env) and reports certain information. As a read-only operation with no side effects, this is adequate, though it doesn't explicitly state it is read-only or mention failure scenarios.
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 structured with bullet points and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the bullet list could be slightly more concise 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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully explains the output content and provides usage context (call first). It is complete for a tool meant for initial project overview.
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, so schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details as none are needed, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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?
Clearly states the output is a Markdown overview of the Symfony project, listing specific data points (PHP version, Symfony version, packages, etc.). It distinguishes itself by instructing to call this tool first, differentiating it from sibling tools.
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?
Explicitly says 'Call this tool first before using other tools to understand the project,' providing clear context. It doesn't mention when not to use it, but this is acceptable given its role as an initial discovery tool.
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, description explains behavior: scans files directly, no index, returns highlighted snippets with file path and line. Adequate for understanding operation.
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?
Concise intro followed by clear bullet-like parameter explanations. No superfluous text. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
Covers all 4 parameters with defaults, output description. Missing potential performance notes or more complex examples, but sufficient given output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 0%, but description fully compensates: explains pattern with examples, path_glob with defaults and examples, context_lines range, max_results range. Adds substantial meaning.
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?
Clear verb 'search' and resource 'project files' with specifics (regex/substring, live, no index). Distinguishes from siblings like find_symbol and analyze_twig.
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?
Provides scenarios: 'finding usages, checking for patterns, searching non-PHP files.' Implicitly suggests one-off use due to 'no index' mention. Lacks explicit comparisons to siblings.
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 the description carries full weight. It explicitly states that analysis is filesystem-only and lists what it extracts (inheritance, includes, imports, blocks, variables). It could mention side-effect-free behavior more explicitly, but is largely transparent.
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 well-structured: purpose first, then key extracted elements in a bullet list, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, and return type (structured Markdown report). It is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the single parameter (0% coverage), but the description adds detailed guidance: valid formats (full path, partial name) and recursive search behavior. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
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: analyze Twig templates and return structural metadata. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools which focus on code searching, routing, or project overview.
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 explains that no PHP execution is required, implying it is safe and fast for static analysis. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.
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?
Discloses the underlying console command, requirements for PHP environment, return format (Markdown table with specific columns), and behavior for single matches. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden.
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?
Well-structured with purpose first, then method, parameters, output, and requirements. No redundancy, but could be slightly more concise.
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?
Covers prerequisites (PHP access), parameters, output format, and behavior for single vs multiple matches. Completeness is appropriate for a tool that runs an external command.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: explains url_pattern as substring or regex with examples, and method as optional filter with examples. Slightly more detail on regex format could improve, but overall effective.
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 it finds Symfony routes matching a URL pattern or route name, specifying the command used. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_code and find_symbol.
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?
Provides explicit examples for url_pattern and method parameter, indicating when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses modes, prerequisites, and return format (Markdown table). Performance characteristics are mentioned, but no explicit statement about non-destructiveness or side effects.
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?
Well-structured with clear headings, concise yet informative. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value.
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 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers usage, modes, filter syntax, and result format completely. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), but the tool description thoroughly explains both parameters, including examples and behavior for default values. Highly compensates for missing schema info.
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 it lists Symfony service definitions, specifying two modes. The verb 'list' and resource 'service definitions' are explicit. Distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., find_route, search_code) by domain focus.
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?
Provides detailed guidance on when to use each mode (YAML vs container debug) with prerequisites. However, no explicit comparison to alternative sibling tools, though context makes it less necessary.
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 provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it explains the default stripping behavior, token savings, security (path traversal blocked), and return format (line numbers, savings summary). No contradiction.
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 well-structured with an Args section, Returns line, and Security note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise yet complete.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, behavior, return content, and security. Given the low complexity and presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds extensive meaning: file_path includes examples and accepted formats, strip_doc_comments explains benefits and default, strip_line_comments clarifies context. This compensates fully.
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 reads a file from the Symfony project with optional comment stripping. The verb 'Read' and resource 'file from the Symfony project' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like analyze_twig or search_code.
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 offers some usage guidance (e.g., using strip_doc_comments=true for faster analysis) and security constraints, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. It lacks direct comparisons or when-not scenarios.
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?
No annotations provided, so description fully discloses behavior: case-insensitive search, optional kind filter, and return of file paths and line numbers. No hidden side effects.
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?
Well-structured with a brief purpose sentence, parameter explanations, and a clear workflow. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.
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?
Covers prerequisites, parameters, and workflow. Output format is mentioned but not detailed; however, an output schema exists to fill that gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
0% schema coverage, but description adds detailed meaning: 'name' is case-insensitive substring with examples; 'kind' lists allowed values and default behavior. Crucial beyond 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 searches for PHP symbols (class, interface, trait, enum, method) and returns file paths and line numbers, distinguishing it from siblings like search_code.
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?
Explicitly mentions prerequisite (build_index) and provides a typical workflow. Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but context is clear.
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?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Discloses persistence to a JSON file, automatic loading, incremental re-scanning, and force option. No mention of destructive side effects or auth needs; adequate transparency.
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?
Well-structured: headline, bullet points for index content, note on persistence/incremental, then Args section. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.
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?
With sibling tools present, description links to find_symbol. Output schema exists (not shown) so return value explanation unnecessary. Complete for a build/index tool with good annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, description explains both parameters: directories (default and example) and force (use case for major refactor). Adds meaning beyond the bare 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?
Clearly states the tool scans PHP files and builds/updates a symbol index. Lists what the index stores (classes, interfaces, traits, enums, methods) and relates to sibling tool find_symbol for lookup. Verb 'scan and build' with resource 'symbol index' is specific and distinct from siblings.
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?
Explicitly advises to run once after project setup and after significant code changes. Implicitly contrasts with find_symbol (no need to re-scan for lookups). Describes incremental behavior to guide efficient use.
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:

[![symfony-php-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/maschmann/symfony-php-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/maschmann/symfony-php-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![symfony-php-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/maschmann/symfony-php-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/maschmann/symfony-php-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/maschmann/symfony-php-mcp'

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