Skip to main content
Glama
parsiya

Trailmark MCP Server

by parsiya
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Trailmark MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Processkit

      raintr91
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Standalone MCP harness for cross-system process evidence, code-change impact review, and natural-language repository checkout mapping, with optional accelerators like CodeGraph.
      1
      MIT

    • ThingForce Graph Studio

      McComics-Servics
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables people and AI agents to query local code repositories as graphs through stdio MCP tools for project listing, search, dependency tracing, impact analysis, bridge detection, node inspection, bounded code reading, and optional LSP definition/reference lookups.
      MIT

    • CodeGB

      Killian-Filippov
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      Provides a local code knowledge graph for Java projects, enabling querying of classes, methods, fields, calls, inheritance, and imports via MCP tools like query, context, impact, and cypher.
      1
      -
    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

    B3/5.0

    Scored across 24 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct operation: graph traversal (ancestors_of, callees_of, callers_of, reachable_from), annotation management (annotate_node, annotations_of, clear_annotations, nodes_with_annotation), repository lifecycle (open_repository, close_repository, current_repository, save_snapshot), and analysis (attack_surface, complexity_hotspots, findings, etc.). No two tools have overlapping purposes.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Tool names follow two predictable patterns: query-like operations use noun_of (e.g., ancestors_of, callees_of, callers_of) and action operations use verb_noun (e.g., annotate_node, open_repository, save_snapshot). This pattern is consistent throughout the set, with no mixing of casing styles or ambiguous verbs.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 24 tools, the count is slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15) but still appropriate for a comprehensive code analysis server covering graph traversal, annotations, repository management, and analysis features. The tools are logically grouped and each serves a distinct purpose, so the number does not feel excessive.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers core workflows: opening/closing repositories, scanning, traversing the call graph, managing annotations, and querying findings. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to list all repositories (only current_repository) or to delete nodes/annotations, but these do not critically hinder typical use cases for a static analysis tool.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources