CodeToPrompt MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| ctp-get-contextC | Generates a comprehensive, context-rich prompt from an entire codebase directory, applying filters and formatting options. |
| ctp-analyse-projectB | Provides a detailed statistical analysis of a codebase, including token counts, line counts, and breakdowns by file type. |
| ctp-get-filesC | Retrieves the content of a specific list of files from the project, formatted into a prompt. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: ctp-analyse-project provides statistical analysis, ctp-get-context generates comprehensive prompts from entire directories, and ctp-get-files retrieves specific file contents. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool based on the task.
All tools follow a consistent 'ctp-verb-noun' naming pattern with hyphens, using descriptive verbs like 'analyse', 'get', and 'get' (though 'get' repeats, it's consistent in structure). The naming is uniform and predictable across all three tools.
With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a server focused on code-to-prompt operations, potentially lacking broader functionality like editing or filtering prompts. However, it covers basic analysis and retrieval tasks adequately for its scope.
The tools cover analysis and retrieval of codebases, but there are notable gaps such as no tools for modifying prompts, handling dynamic contexts, or integrating with external systems. This limits the server's ability to support full code-to-prompt workflows without workarounds.