Skip to main content
Glama
xTanTHaix

ait-mcp

by xTanTHaix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to ait-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • @cognium/mcp-server by cogniumhq

      @cognium/mcp-serverofficial

      cogniumhq
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients such as Cursor, Claude Desktop, and Claude Code to run deterministic static-analysis tools for scanning projects, listing entry points and reachable sinks, tracing taint paths, explaining findings, and checking sanitizers without API keys or network access.
      MIT

    • code-evidence

      yarakrot
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to select bounded Python source context, run configured checks, and retrieve compact failure reports, diagnostic comparisons, and freshness evidence tied to the checked code.
      MIT

    • mcp-code-analysis

      petsan
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables static analysis of code snippets and public GitHub repositories using ruff and semgrep through a secure MCP SSE server.
      -

    • ocr-mcp-server

      Gwrominl
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Exposes Semgrep as deterministic, rule-matching analysis tools over MCP so a code-review agent can scan only the lines changed in a diff, scan whole files on demand, and check analyzer availability, version, ruleset, and limits. Results are returned as compact per-finding lines with source snippets suitable as comment anchors, along with counts of suppressed out-of-diff matches.
      3
      -
    Deploy Server
    Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    A4.6/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct role: whole-file/directory review, single-symbol extraction, and post-patch AST verification. The explicit USE WHEN / DO NOT USE clauses directly prevent the main overlaps, leaving little room for misselection.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The `ait_` prefix is consistent across all three tools, and the action suffixes are readable. The pattern is slightly uneven (`review` vs. `slice_context` vs. `verify_fix`), but the naming remains predictable enough for an agent.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools are appropriate for a focused static-analysis workflow: audit, inspect one symbol, and verify a candidate fix. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary surface area.

    Completeness4/5

    The core review-inspect-verify lifecycle is covered. Minor gaps remain, such as a tool to list rules or locate a symbol by name, but the descriptions acknowledge that symbol lookup is out of scope and workable around.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources