Skip to main content
Glama
CodeHealth MCP Server

CodeHealth MCP Server

Related Servers

Alternatives to CodeHealth MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to review code-health deltas, preview proposed changes, score files or whole projects, and get explanations of code smells through MCP tools.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding tools to analyze projects and files for technical debt across multiple languages, calculate SQALE remediation metrics, scan dependencies, and generate prioritized recommendations through MCP tools and resources.
      16
      73 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants and developers to analyze code for language-specific best practices and idiomatic patterns across programming languages, CI automation, and configuration formats.
      16
      2
      MIT
    • F
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to perform comprehensive, zero-infrastructure codebase analysis through 24 MCP tools, covering security, quality, architecture, type safety, git history, and dead code detection with high precision and local privacy.
      45
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to analyze repository architecture, changed-file and diff impact, dependency and endpoint exposure, API contract compatibility, architecture boundaries, bounded capacity simulations, and security/quality evidence through MCP tools.
      3
      Apache 2.0

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 9 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools are clearly distinct (explain vs. analyze vs. rules configuration), and the two closest pairs — code_health_score vs. code_health_review and pre_commit_code_health_safeguard vs. analyze_change_set — are separated by explicit 'when to use' framing (quick score vs. full findings; staged/HEAD vs. merge base). The score/review pair still shares nearly identical inputs and only differs in output depth, so an agent could pick the lighter tool when it needed findings.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Conventions are mixed: code_health_score and code_health_review use a noun-prefix form, explain_code_health flips to verb-first, analyze_change_set is verb_noun, pre_commit_code_health_safeguard has no verb at all, and the rules_config_* family uses a different noun_noun_verb ordering. Each name is individually readable, but there is no single predictable pattern to infer a tool from.

    Tool Count5/5

    Nine tools is well within the ideal range and each one earns its place: two analysis entry points, two change-comparison entry points, documentation, and four rules-file operations. Nothing appears redundant or bolted on.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the lifecycle well — score, detailed review, explanation, pre-commit gate, branch-level change analysis, and full rules read/validate/write. Gaps remain around reading back the effective repository rules (only defaults are listed) and any multi-file or directory-level scan, since analysis is one file at a time.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues