Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Tech Debt MCP Server

Tech Debt MCP Server

by viniciosrab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

analyze_project

Scans an entire project for technical debt, returning issues, metrics, and prioritized recommendations so you can identify and address code quality risks.

Instructions

Analyze an entire project for technical debt. Scans all supported files and returns a comprehensive report with issues, metrics, and recommendations.

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": "analyze_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to the project root directory
maxFilesNoOptional: maximum number of files to analyze (minimum: 1)
severityNoOptional: minimum severity level
languagesNoOptional: specific languages to analyze
categoriesNoOptional: filter by debt categories

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the output shape (issues, metrics, recommendations) and that it scans all supported files, hinting at a potentially expensive full-project scan, but says nothing about permissions, whether it writes or caches anything, runtime limits on large projects, or how maxFiles/truncation affects results.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the purpose and the return contents are both front-loaded ahead of any optional detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description does mention what comes back (issues, metrics, recommendations), which is necessary. But for a five-parameter project-wide scan it omits cost/scale behavior and whether analysis has side effects, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding when to call it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the severity enum. The description adds only the loose notion of "supported files," which does not clarify languages, categories, or maxFiles behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Analyze an entire project for technical debt") and scopes it to the whole project, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling analyze_file. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so it falls short of a 5, but an agent can still tell what it does and at what scope.

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 phrase "entire project" implies when to choose this over a single-file analysis, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., versus get_debt_summary or analyze_file). Usage is only inferable from the scope wording.

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