Skip to main content
Glama
naeem-gitonga

README Insight MCP

by naeem-gitonga
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

README Insight MCP

Small MCP server that summarizes README files from either a local path or a public Git repository. It exposes:

  • Tools: readme_summary for local paths and readme_from_git for remote repos

  • Resources: readme://local/current for accessing the current directory's README

  • Prompts: analyze_readme for analyzing a README's completeness

What it shows

  • How to define MCP tools, resources, and prompts

  • How to summarize README content from local files or Git URLs

  • A clear, demo-friendly use case

Related MCP server: gitSERVER README Manager

Setup

git clone /home/naeemgtng/projects/example-mcp
cd example-mcp
npm install

Run

npm run dev

Example Claude MCP setup

claude mcp add readme-insight -- npx tsx /home/naeemgtng/projects/example-mcp/src/server.ts

Example tool calls

{
  "name": "readme_summary",
  "arguments": {
    "path": "."
  }
}
{
  "name": "readme_from_git",
  "arguments": {
    "repo_url": "https://github.com/user/repo"
  }
}

Example output

{
  "summary": "First paragraph of the README...",
  "key_facts": [
    "Install",
    "Run",
    "Example tool call"
  ]
}

Resources

The server exposes one resource:

URI

Description

readme://local/current

Returns the README from the current working directory

Prompts

The server exposes one prompt:

Name

Description

Arguments

analyze_readme

Analyze a README for completeness

repo_url (required): Git repository URL

Example prompt call:

{
  "name": "analyze_readme_prompt",
  "arguments": {
    "repo_url": "https://github.com/user/repo"
  }
}

Read about it here

Available Tools

2 tools
readme_from_gitC

Fetch and summarize a README from a Git repository URL.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_urlYesURL of the Git repository (e.g., https://github.com/user/repo).

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'fetch and summarize' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'summarize' entails (e.g., format, length). This leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('fetch and summarize a README') with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., how summarization works, error cases) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured fields, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'repo_url' with a clear description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as URL format constraints or examples, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('fetch and summarize') and resource ('README from a Git repository URL'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'readme_summary' by specifying the source (Git repository URL), though it doesn't explicitly contrast their differences.

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 the sibling 'readme_summary' or other alternatives. The description implies usage for fetching READMEs from Git URLs but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

readme_summaryC

Summarize a README from a local path (file or directory).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to a README.md file or a directory containing README.md.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool summarizes a README, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what format the summary is in, whether it handles errors for invalid paths, if it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('summarize') and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the summary output looks like, how it's generated, or any behavioral context. For a tool with one parameter but significant implied complexity in summarization, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema fully documenting the 'path' parameter. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the path can be to a file or directory, but doesn't provide additional semantics like examples, constraints, or edge cases beyond what the schema already states.

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 'summarize' and the resource 'README from a local path', specifying it can handle both files and directories. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'readme_from_git', which likely handles remote repositories, but the purpose is clear and specific.

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 its sibling 'readme_from_git' or other alternatives. It mentions the path can be a file or directory, but offers no context on prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The two tools have overlapping purposes—both summarize README files—but descriptions clarify the distinction: one fetches from a Git URL, the other from a local path. This overlap could cause confusion if an agent misinterprets the source type, but the descriptions provide enough context to differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a clear 'readme_' prefix, but the suffixes ('from_git' vs 'summary') are not perfectly parallel. The naming is mostly predictable and readable, with minor deviations in verb usage that do not significantly hinder understanding.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its purpose of README insight, lacking operations like analysis, comparison, or validation. This minimal set limits functionality and may require agents to work around gaps, making it borderline inadequate for a comprehensive tool surface.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for README insight, covering only fetching and summarizing from different sources. Missing are tools for analyzing content (e.g., checking for sections, links), comparing READMEs, generating summaries in different formats, or validating structure, which are common needs in this domain.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches

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/naeem-gitonga/example-mcp'

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