Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
io.github.neogeweb3/code-health-suite

io.github.neogeweb3/code-health-suite

by neogeweb3
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_complexity_score

Analyze a codebase directory to get a complexity score from 0 to 100, a letter grade (A-F), and a complexity profile with top offenders, enabling quick identification of areas needing refactoring.

Instructions

Get an overall complexity health score (0-100) with letter grade (A-F), complexity profile classification, and top offenders. Quick project health check.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "get_complexity_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesDirectory path to analyze.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Get' but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or any behavioral traits.

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 two short sentences, with no unnecessary words; the second sentence 'Quick project health check' adds a minor context but is concise.

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?

For a simple tool, the description covers the main purpose and output (score, grade, classification, offenders) but does not mention any limitations or prerequisites; however, given the simplicity, it is adequate.

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?

The parameter 'path' is clearly described as 'Directory path to analyze', providing sufficient meaning beyond just the type.

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 provides a complexity health score, letter grade, classification, and top offenders, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_security_score.

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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over others; it only says 'Quick project health check' which is generic. No alternatives are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools