Skip to main content
Glama
dothinh115

code-intel-mcp

by dothinh115
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

code-intel-mcp

MCP server for efficient codebase exploration by coding agents. List exports, get file outlines, read targeted regions, and find references — without loading whole files into context.

Tools

Tool

Input

Output

When to use

list_exports

path (file/folder), filter?, depth?

Name + signature + line + totalLines

Discover what a file/folder contains

file_outline

path (file), exportedOnly?

All symbols with line ranges

Understand structure before reading

read_region

path, start, end (max 200 lines)

Numbered source lines

Read only the code you need

find_references

symbol, path (dir), filePattern?, maxResults?

File:line + context

Trace call chains and usage

Related MCP server: symapse

Recommended agent workflow

1. list_exports(path, filter) → discover what exists and where
2. file_outline(file) → understand structure and line ranges
3. read_region(file, start, end) → read only the relevant ±30 lines
4. find_references(symbol, dir) → trace who calls it before modifying

Setup

Any MCP-compatible client (via npx)

No local install needed. Point your MCP client at:

command: npx
args: ["-y", "@dothinh/code-intel-mcp"]

Codex (desktop app / CLI)

Add to ~/.codex/config.toml:

[mcp_servers.code-intel]
command = "npx"
args = ["-y", "@dothinh/code-intel-mcp"]

Cursor

Add to .cursor/mcp.json (project-level) or global MCP settings:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "code-intel": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@dothinh/code-intel-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Claude Code

claude mcp add code-intel -- npx -y @dothinh/code-intel-mcp

Windsurf / Cline / Continue / other MCP clients

Use the same npx command and args in your client's MCP server configuration. The server communicates over stdio using newline-delimited JSON-RPC.

Requirements

  • Node.js >= 20

  • rg (ripgrep) on PATH — used by find_references

Supported languages

TypeScript, JavaScript, Vue SFC, and Svelte for export detection and file outlines. find_references works with any text file that ripgrep can read (Python, Go, Rust, etc.).

Local development

git clone git@github.com:dothinh115/code-intel-mcp.git
cd code-intel-mcp
yarn install
yarn build
node dist/index.js   # starts MCP server on stdio

License

MIT

Available Tools

4 tools
file_outlineA

Get a structural outline of a single file: every function, class, interface, type, enum, and top-level const with line ranges. Shows both exported and non-exported symbols. Use to understand file structure before reading a specific region.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to a source file
exportedOnlyNoOnly show exported symbols (default false = show all)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool shows line ranges for each symbol, includes both exported and non-exported symbols, and implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not mention performance or authorization, but for a structural outline tool, these are not critical.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first specifies what the tool does and what it returns, the second provides usage advice. Every sentence adds value, and there is no superfluous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (2 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage context. It does not detail the exact response format, but the note about 'line ranges' gives sufficient expectation for an outline tool.

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 coverage is 100%, as both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it reinforces that path is absolute and that exportedOnly controls showing exported symbols only. The phrase 'Shows both exported and non-exported symbols' clarifies default behavior but is already implied by the schema description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it retrieves a structural outline of a single file, listing symbols like functions, classes, interfaces, etc. with line ranges. It distinguishes itself from siblings: list_exports (which likely only shows exports), read_region (which reads a region), and find_references (which finds references). The verb 'Get' and resource 'structural outline of a single file' are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description suggests using this tool 'to understand file structure before reading a specific region,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives besides the implied sibling tools. This is a minor gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

find_referencesA

Find all references to a symbol (function, class, variable, type) across a directory using ripgrep. Returns file, line, and matching text. Use to trace call chains and understand usage before modifying.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to a directory to search in
symbolYesSymbol name or regex pattern to search for
maxResultsNoMaximum results to return (default 50)
filePatternNoOptional glob to filter files (e.g. '*.ts', '*.vue')

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions using ripgrep and returning file/line/text, but does not disclose behavior like performance, .gitignore handling, or safety (read-only is implied but not explicit). With annotations absent, more detail would be beneficial.

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, no fluff, each sentence earns its place: first defines action and method, second provides usage context. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description mentions 'Returns file, line, and matching text', covering the return format. It also gives a use case. Missing details like result truncation (maxResults) are minor; overall sufficient for a simple search tool with 4 parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates 'symbol' and 'path' but does not elaborate on format or constraints. Falls into the typical baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Find all references to a symbol across a directory using ripgrep', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_exports (exports) and file_outline (structure), leaving no ambiguity about what finds_references does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Includes explicit guidance: 'Use to trace call chains and understand usage before modifying', indicating when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, so a slight deduction applies.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

list_exportsA

List all exported symbols (functions, classes, types, consts) from a file or folder. Returns name, signature, file, line number, and total file lines. Use this instead of reading a whole file to discover what it contains.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to a file or folder to scan
depthNoFolder recursion depth (default 1, 0 = top-level only)
filterNoOptional regex to filter by name or signature (case-insensitive)

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the operation without disclosing traits like read-only nature, permission needs, or side effects. Listing exports is inherently non-destructive, but the description does not confirm this.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence explains what it does, the second provides usage guidance. Efficiently front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description usefully lists return fields. It covers the primary use case, but could be more explicit about folder scanning behavior (e.g., recursive by default).

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists exported symbols (functions, classes, types, consts) from a file or folder, specifying return fields. It distinguishes from reading the whole file but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like file_outline.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this instead of reading a whole file to discover what it contains.' This gives a reason to use the tool but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

read_regionA

Read a specific line range from a file (max 200 lines per call). Returns numbered source lines. Use after list_exports or file_outline to read only the code you need instead of the whole file.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endYesEnd line (1-based, max start+199)
pathYesAbsolute path to a source file
startYesStart line (1-based)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses max 200 lines per call and returns numbered source lines. No contradictory annotations. Lacks details on error handling or side effects, but read operation is inherently safe.

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, no extra words. Front-loaded with key action and constraint, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, constraints, return format, and usage guidance. Lacks mention of error cases or permissions, but acceptable given tool simplicity and no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Adds value beyond schema by stating the 200-line limit and that output is numbered lines. Schema already describes parameters, so baseline is 3; description meaningfully enhances understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads a specific line range from a file, with a 200-line limit. It differentiates from siblings by framing it as a way to read only needed code after using list_exports or file_outline.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States to use after list_exports or file_outline to read only needed code, implying when to use it. Lacks explicit negative guidance (e.g., when not to use), but context is helpful.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 4 tool updatesv0.1.2
    • First observedfile_outline
    • First observedfind_references
    • First observedlist_exports
    • First observedread_region
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a clear, non-overlapping purpose: listing exports, file structure outlines, reading specific regions, and finding references. No ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is an ideal size for a code intelligence server, covering essential operations without being too sparse or overwhelming.

Completeness5/5

The set provides a complete workflow for code exploration: discover exports, understand structure, read code, and find usages. No obvious gaps for its intended purpose.

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • ast-outline-mcp

    Xayan
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Enables AI coding agents to efficiently explore codebases by providing structural outlines, module digests, symbol bodies, and AST-aware grep via MCP.
    4
    17
    1
    MIT

  • codebase-rag

    Ar-maan05
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables LLM agents to efficiently understand and navigate a codebase by providing semantic search over symbols and a reference graph, replacing expensive grep/glob calls with structured tools like definition lookup, caller/callee queries, and change-impact analysis.
    1
    MIT

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dothinh115/code-intel-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server