Local Dev Bridge MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: edit_file modifies specific text in files, list_directory shows directory contents, read_file reads file contents, run_command executes shell commands, search_files searches text across files, and write_file creates or overwrites files. The descriptions clearly differentiate their functions, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., edit_file, list_directory, read_file). There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to understand at a glance.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, this server is well-scoped for local development tasks. Each tool earns its place by covering essential file operations (read, write, edit, search, list) and command execution, without being overly sparse or bloated for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface provides strong coverage for local development workflows, including file CRUD operations (read, write, edit), directory listing, file searching, and command execution. A minor gap is the lack of file deletion or move/copy operations, but agents can work around this using run_command for such tasks.
Average 3.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context: 'The old_text must match exactly (including whitespace),' which clarifies a constraint. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens if the text isn't found, which are critical for a mutation tool. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical constraint. There is no wasted language, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.
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 the complexity of a file-editing mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic operation and a constraint but omits details on permissions, side effects, error cases, and return values. This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent without additional context.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the exact match requirement for 'old_text' but doesn't add new semantic details beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description provides minimal additional value.
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: 'Edit a file by replacing specific text.' It specifies the verb ('edit') and resource ('file') with the operation ('replacing specific text'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'write_file' or 'search_files', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'write_file' (which might overwrite entire files) or 'search_files' (which might find text without editing), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but lacks details on permissions, error handling, output format, pagination, or whether it's read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.
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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with zero waste.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error cases), permissions needed, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with no structured context, more detail is warranted.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond implying the path is for listing contents, but it doesn't provide additional context like path validation or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('List') and resource ('files and directories'), and it specifies the scope ('in a given path'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_files' or 'read_file', which prevents a perfect score.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like browsing directory contents versus searching for specific files, nor does it reference sibling tools such as 'search_files' for filtered queries or 'read_file' for file content access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches recursively but doesn't cover other critical aspects: it doesn't mention if the search is case-sensitive, what the output format is (e.g., list of matches, file paths), performance implications for large directories, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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: 'Search for text within files in a directory (recursive)'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential scope information without any wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 the tool's complexity (searching files recursively with three parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., search results format), potential limitations, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a search operation, more context is needed to guide effective use by an agent.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions: 'query' for text to search, 'path' for the directory (with a default), and 'file_pattern' for filtering. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying recursive search, but it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline score when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: 'Search for text within files in a directory (recursive)'. It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('text within files'), and scope ('directory (recursive)'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'read_file', which prevents a perfect score.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'list_directory' for listing files without searching or 'read_file' for viewing file contents, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual advice leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios independently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions executing shell commands but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: it does not warn about potential destructive effects (e.g., commands that delete files), security implications (e.g., requiring specific permissions), or operational constraints (e.g., rate limits or timeouts). The description is vague on what happens during execution, leaving gaps in transparency for a tool that interacts with the system.
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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and usage examples. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and context, and the second provides practical applications without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main functionality, making it easy to understand quickly.
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 the complexity of executing shell commands (which can have significant side effects), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address key contextual aspects such as error handling, output format, security warnings, or limitations. For a tool with potential system-wide impact, more detail is needed to ensure safe and effective use, making it inadequate for its intended purpose.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('command' and 'cwd'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the context ('in the projects directory') and providing usage examples, but does not elaborate on parameter semantics, such as specific formats or constraints for the 'command' string or how 'cwd' interacts with the projects directory. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.
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: 'Execute a shell command in the projects directory.' It specifies the verb ('Execute') and resource ('shell command'), and provides examples of typical use cases ('running npm install, git commands, tests, etc.'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'search_files' in terms of when to use one over the other for command execution versus file operations.
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 implies usage by providing examples ('Use for running npm install, git commands, tests, etc.'), which gives some context for when to apply this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'edit_file' for editing vs. 'run_command' for execution), and does not specify exclusions or prerequisites, such as needing appropriate permissions or avoiding destructive commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads files but doesn't mention potential issues like file permissions, errors for non-existent files, encoding handling, or output format. For a file system tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and uses a second sentence to add context efficiently. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying usage without waste, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or output format, which would be helpful for an agent to use it correctly in varied scenarios.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Read') and resource ('contents of a file from the local file system'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_files' or 'list_directory' beyond the general 'view existing code files' context, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect 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 provides some implied usage guidance with 'Use this to view existing code files,' which suggests a context for reading code files. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., compared to 'search_files' for finding files or 'edit_file' for modifying them), and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, making it only moderately helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a write/mutation operation ('create or overwrite') and specifies it completely replaces existing files. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, error conditions (e.g., path validation), or what happens on success/failure, which are important for a destructive operation.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and behavior but lacks information about return values, error handling, and specific constraints. Given the complexity of file operations, more context would be helpful.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('create or overwrite') and resource ('a file with new content'), distinguishing it from siblings like edit_file (partial updates) and read_file (read-only). It explicitly covers both creation and replacement scenarios.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context ('create new files or completely replace existing ones'), which helps differentiate from edit_file for partial modifications. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for appending) or name specific alternatives beyond the implied contrast with edit_file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![local-dev-bridge-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/talentedmrweb/local-dev-bridge-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/talentedmrweb/local-dev-bridge-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![local-dev-bridge-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/talentedmrweb/local-dev-bridge-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/talentedmrweb/local-dev-bridge-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/talentedmrweb/local-dev-bridge-mcp'

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