MCP server providing code analysis and repository inspection tools for agent-based development workflows
Critical failures across all dimensions. Tool definitions are inferred from SKILL.md documentation rather than explicit schema registration in code. No visible input schemas, parameter types, or structured output definitions. Descriptions are present but generic (10-50 chars each), lacking actionable context for LLM selection. No error handling guidance, no parameter constraints, no output schema documentation. Tools appear to be read-only code analysis utilities, but the implementation details are opaque, cannot verify actual parameter handling, validation, or response structure from provided source.
Audit HTTP security headers in the codebase
Analyze package dependencies and versions
Analyze and validate test coverage and test files
Search and locate code patterns in the repository
Extended reasoning tool for complex analysis tasks
Read and analyze source code files from the repository
No input schemas visible in source code. All 6 tools lack documented parameter types, constraints, and descriptions. Cannot verify what parameters each tool accepts or how to invoke them.
Tool definitions are inferred from markdown documentation (SKILL.md) rather than explicit schema registration. Per HARD SCORING RULES, tools without visible explicit registration are capped at 50 overall; combined with missing schemas, actual score is much lower.
Descriptions are generic and under 50 characters (e.g., 'Search and locate code patterns in the repository').
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 33 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
No output schema documentation. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract required fields. Unknown whether tools return structured objects, lists, or free-text responses.
'keep_thinking' tool name is vague and does not follow verb_noun convention. Does not clearly convey what action occurs. Ambiguous names cause LLM selection errors.