javats-impact-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: indexing, symbol lookup, reference finding, endpoint details, cross-stack impact, git context, and summary aggregation. No overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., find_symbol, get_endpoint), making them predictable and easy to differentiate.
Tool Count5/5With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a code impact analysis domain. Each tool serves a clear role without being too many or too few.
Completeness4/5The tools cover core workflows: indexing, searching, referencing, endpoint mapping, impact analysis, and git context. Minor gaps exist like direct file content retrieval, but the set is sufficient for its stated purpose.
Average 2.8/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 30 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
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
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it uses an index, performance characteristics, or side effects. The burden is entirely on the description, which fails to address this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (5 words) and under-specified. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness, making it insufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description fails to provide essential context such as what the output looks like, what symbol_id refers to, or what 'intra-language' constraints mean. The description is incomplete for practical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no description for the single parameter symbol_id. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the type (number), leaving the agent uncertain about what 'symbol_id' represents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Intra-language references to a symbol.' indicates the tool finds references to a symbol within the same language, which is clear but lacks a verb like 'Find' or 'List'. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like find_symbol, but could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use or not use this tool compared to siblings like find_symbol or analyze_impact. The description does not mention context or alternatives.
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 present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The tool likely performs a read operation, but this is not stated, leaving the agent uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which is concise, but it sacrifices clarity and completeness. While no unnecessary words exist, the brevity results in under-specification. A score of 3 reflects the balance between conciseness and adequacy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description should clearly state the output type and input requirements. It only hints at the domain, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'pathOrMethod' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not explain what format or values are expected, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Java endpoint <-> OpenAPI operation <-> DTO schema' suggests a mapping or retrieval function but lacks a clear action verb. The name implies 'get', but the description does not explicitly state what the tool does or how it distinguishes from siblings like find_symbol or index_project. It is minimally acceptable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage, leaving the agent without direction.
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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals it 'builds/refreshes' (mutation) and returns counts, but does not mention idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or whether it overwrites existing state. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) but omits critical details. While it is concise, it sacrifices completeness. A good balance would include parameter semantics and usage guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter (0% coverage), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what 'cross-stack index' means, what 'counts' refer to, or how 'paths' affect behavior. The agent lacks necessary context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The tool description does not explain the 'paths' parameter (e.g., what paths? files, directories? required? file types?). The agent cannot infer correct usage from the given information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs 'Build/refresh' and identifies the resource 'cross-stack index' and output 'Returns counts'. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like 'find_symbol' and 'analyze_impact' which are query/analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.
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, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses cross-stack analysis and confidence flags but omits details on read-only status, resource access, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 7 words. It is very concise, though it could be slightly expanded for clarity without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of cross-stack analysis and the absence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what 'blast radius' entails, the meaning of 'confidence flags', or the expected output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds that the parameter is 'for a symbol', but with 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient. It does not explain what symbol_id represents, how to obtain it, or any constraints beyond being a number.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses 'cross-stack blast radius' to clearly convey impact analysis of a symbol across multiple stacks. It distinguishes from siblings like find_references (direct references) and explain_symbol (symbol explanation). The mention of 'confidence flags' adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, without context on prerequisites or exclusions.
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 provided; description carries full burden. It only says 'aggregate' and 'summary'—discloses no behavioral traits like read-only nature, data source details, error behavior, or output format. Minimal transparency for a tool combining multiple sources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is one sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it may be too terse; adding context about output or usage would improve without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool aggregates multiple data sources but description lacks details on the summary format, structure, or behavior. No output schema, so description should fill gaps. Incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description adds no meaning to 'symbol_id'. Parameter name is self-explanatory but description should clarify its origin or format (e.g., from find_symbol). Does not compensate for lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states it aggregates definition, references, endpoint, and git into one summary. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch individual pieces (find_symbol, find_references, get_endpoint, get_git_context). Verb 'aggregate' and specific sources make purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Aggregate ... into one summary' implies use when a comprehensive overview is needed, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings, when not to use, or prerequisites. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It lacks details on search scope (current project vs entire codebase), multiple matches, or behavior when symbol not found. The minimal description does not disclose important 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the purpose. Every word adds value; no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and only 1 line description. Missing details on result format, pagination, error handling, or completeness guarantees. Inadequate for a search tool with multiple possible results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning by listing symbol types (class, method, field, enum, endpoint) but does not explain the 'kind' parameter or its possible values beyond the types mentioned. It partially compensates but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool locates various symbols (class, method, field, enum, endpoint) by name and provides file:line location. It distinguishes from siblings like find_references (usages) and get_endpoint (specific to endpoints).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, it doesn't say 'use this for definitions; use find_references for usages' or specify prerequisites.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'recent authors, commits, and blame summary,' which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not detail what 'recent' means, whether authentication is needed, or if there are any rate limits or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is concise and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not thorough. It does not clarify what 'recent' means, how the blame summary is structured, or if the tool requires a git repository.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'fileOrSymbol.' The description mentions 'file or symbol' but does not clarify the expected format (e.g., path, name) or provide examples. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool returns recent authors, commits, and blame summary for a file or symbol. It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (git context), and distinguishes itself from siblings like find_symbol or get_endpoint by focusing on git history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, nor does it mention when not to use it. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/thanhphuong080199/javats-impact-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server