Skip to main content
Glama
mumez

smalltalk-validator-mcp-server

by mumez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to smalltalk-validator-mcp-server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • treesitter-mcp

      pwno-io
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server and CLI that uses Tree-sitter to parse and analyze code.
      13
      20
      -

    • code-analyze-mcp

      clouatre-labs
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Standalone MCP server for code structure analysis using tree-sitter. Directory trees, symbol definitions, and call graphs without reading raw source files. Supports Rust, Python, Go, Java, TypeScript, Fortran, JavaScript, C/C++, and C#. Benchmarked up to 68% fewer tokens vs native tools.
      6
      Apache 2.0

    • godot-correctness-mcp

      TMHSDigital
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Offline static correctness MCP server for Godot 4.x GDScript projects that lints code, looks up API symbols, and validates scenes/resources, all without a running editor.
      6 npm
      Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International

    • CodeCortX-MCP

      kensave
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A lightning-fast, language-agnostic code analysis MCP (Model Context Protocol) server built in Rust
      9
      -
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 5 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    The content/file distinction is clear, and validate_smalltalk_method_body is genuinely distinct, but lint vs validate pairs are highly similar in purpose and may cause an agent to select the wrong one without deeper semantics. Descriptions help only slightly because they don't define the exact boundary between linting and validating.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with an optional _from_file suffix. The naming is predictable across content-string and file-based variants, and validate_smalltalk_method_body fits the same style despite targeting a different input type.

    Tool Count5/5

    Five tools is a well-scoped number for a focused Smalltalk source validator, covering both linting and validating across content strings and files, plus method body validation. No tool feels unnecessary, and the set is compact rather than bloated.

    Completeness4/5

    The core validation and linting workflows are covered for Tonel source code from both content strings and files, along with direct method-body validation. Minor gaps exist in the absence of batch processing, formatting, or a way to validate method bodies from files, but these are workable rather than blocking.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources