OpenCode Helper MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| OPENCODE_HELPER_ALLOWED_ROOTS | No | Semicolon-separated list of additional allowed absolute paths. By default, target folders must be under C:\Develop. |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| analyze_code_cloudflareA | Read-only code analysis using the fixed Cloudflare Workers AI GLM 4.7 Flash model at low reasoning effort. Use this first. |
| analyze_code_mimoA | Read-only code analysis using the fixed OpenCode MiMo V2.5 Free model at low reasoning effort. Use this after Cloudflare GLM fails or is insufficient. |
| analyze_code_nemotronA | Read-only code analysis using the fixed NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano Omni model at low reasoning effort. Use this after MiMo fails or is insufficient. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools share the same core operation—analyzing code at low reasoning effort—and differ only by backend model. Their descriptions include model names and a fallback order, but there is no distinct purpose-based choice; an agent can only distinguish them by which fallback step it happens to need.
All tools follow the consistent pattern analyze_code_<model>, with matchings-style and no mixing of verbs or argument formats. The naming is predictable and readable.
Three tools is not necessarily bloated, and the fallback approach justifies multiple endpooints. However, this functionality could just as easily be a single tool with model parameter, so the count is slightly inflated by the redundancy.
The server covers its narrow read-only code analysis goal by providing three fallback models. But beyond analyzing a snippet/no input, there is no capability for fetching code, changing analysis params, handling analysis output, or performing any related helper task, which leaves the surface limited.