No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 26 tools
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists. For example, 'find_text' and 'run_query' both search for patterns, though one uses text matching and the other uses tree-sitter queries. Similarly, 'analyze_complexity' and 'analyze_project' both analyze code but at different scopes. Descriptions help clarify boundaries, but an agent might occasionally hesitate between these pairs.
Naming is mixed with no clear pattern. Some tools use verb_noun (e.g., 'clear_cache', 'build_query'), others use noun_verb (e.g., 'list_files', 'list_projects_tool'), and some are ambiguous (e.g., 'configure', 'diagnose_config'). There's inconsistency in suffix usage, like 'list_projects_tool' vs. 'register_project_tool', which disrupts predictability. However, names are generally readable despite the lack of a uniform convention.
With 26 tools, the count feels heavy for a tree-sitter server, bordering on excessive. While the domain of code analysis and querying is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., 'get_file' and 'get_file_metadata'). It's not extreme, but the number may overwhelm agents and suggests over-specialization rather than a well-scoped set.
The tool set comprehensively covers the tree-sitter and code analysis domain. It includes project management (register, list, remove), file operations (get, list, metadata), AST and query tools (get_ast, run_query, build_query), analysis (complexity, dependencies, symbols), and utilities (cache, configuration). There are no obvious gaps; agents can perform full workflows from setup to detailed code exploration.
