How do I use Local Project Sync?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Local Project Sync search for all API endpoint definitions in the backend code" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

Local Project Sync

by xueshanisusan

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

本地代码知识库同步 MCP 工具

这是一个基于 模型上下文协议（Model Context Protocol, MCP）开发的服务端工具，旨在将你的本地项目代码目录无缝连接到支持 MCP 的 AI 应用（如 Claude 桌面版），从而将你的本地代码库变成一个可供 AI 实时查询和分析的动态知识库。

你不再需要手动上传文件或依赖云端仓库同步，AI 可以直接与你本地最新的代码进行交互。

主要功能

本项目通过实现多个 MCP 工具，为 AI 提供了与本地文件系统交互的超能力：

基础工具

list_project_files：递归地列出所有已配置目录中的文件，提供项目全貌
read_file_content：读取单个指定文件的完整内容，用于深度代码分析
analyze_project_structure：生成项目结构的概览和统计信息，帮助快速了解项目

智能搜索工具

search_code_content：在整个代码库中进行智能搜索，支持：
- 普通文本搜索和正则表达式搜索
- 深层目录结构精确定位
- 可配置的上下文行数，避免返回过多内容
- 文件类型过滤和结果数量控制

高效读取工具

read_multiple_files：使用 glob 模式批量读取多个文件的内容，方便提供模块级上下文
extract_function_definition：精确提取指定函数/方法的完整定义，包括注释和装饰器
read_file_section：读取文件的指定行范围，获取精确的代码片段

Related MCP server: Codebase MCP

快速开始

安装与配置

克隆仓库

git clone https://github.com/cytrogen/mcp-local-sync.git
cd mcp-local-sync

安装依赖
```
npm install

yarn install
```
配置同步路径
1. 打开 src/index.ts 文件
2. 找到 SYNC_PATHS 这个常量数组
3. 将其中的示例路径替换为你自己电脑上希望同步的项目的绝对路径。你可以配置一个或多个路径：
  const SYNC_PATHS = [ "D:\\your\\project\\directory\\src", "D:\\another\\project\\directory\\src" ];
构建项目
运行构建命令，将 TypeScript 代码编译为 JavaScript：
```
npm run build

yarn run build
```
成功后，会在项目根目录下生成一个 build 文件夹。

连接到 Claude 桌面版

找到并编辑 Claude 配置文件：
- Windows：%APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
- macOS：~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
如果文件或目录不存在，请手动创建它。
添加 MCP 服务器配置
将以下 JSON 内容添加到配置文件中（注意：必须将 args 中的路径替换为你自己项目 build/index.js 文件的绝对路径）：
```
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "localProjectSync": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": [
        "D:\\path\\to\\your\\mcp-local-sync\\build\\index.js"
      ]
    }
  }
}
```
重启 Claude
完全退出并重新启动 Claude 桌面应用。成功后，你可以在聊天输入框下的 Search and Tools 菜单项内看到 localProjectSync 这个工具。

使用示例

基础项目探索

// 1. 了解项目结构
list_project_files()

// 2. 分析项目架构
analyze_project_structure({
  scope: "backend",
  depth: 3
})

智能代码搜索

// 普通文本搜索
search_code_content({
  query: "EmailTemplateService",
  fileTypes: [".ts"],
  maxResults: 10
})

// 正则表达式搜索多个方法
search_code_content({
  query: "markFieldProblems|requestClientRevision|submitRevision",
  fileTypes: [".ts", ".js"],
  maxResults: 10,
  useRegex: true
})

// 搜索并返回上下文
search_code_content({
  query: "async function",
  contextLines: 5,  // 前后各5行上下文
  maxResults: 8
})

精确代码提取

// 提取完整函数定义（推荐用法）
extract_function_definition({
  filePath: "[backend/src]/modules/email/services/email-template.service.ts",
  functionName: "renderTemplate",
  includeComments: true,
  includeDecorators: true
})

// 读取指定行范围
read_file_section({
  filePath: "[backend/src]/main.ts",
  startLine: 1,
  endLine: 50,
  showLineNumbers: true
})

批量文件分析

// 读取模块内的所有服务
read_multiple_files({
  patterns: ["modules/*/services/*.service.ts"],
  maxFiles: 10
})

// 读取配置相关文件
read_multiple_files({
  patterns: ["config/*.ts", "*.config.ts"],   
  maxFiles: 5
})

组合使用示例

// 完整的代码探索流程
1. analyze_project_structure() // 了解架构
2. search_code_content({query: "UserService", useRegex: false}) // 找到位置
3. extract_function_definition({functionName: "createUser"}) // 提取具体方法
4. read_multiple_files({patterns: ["**/user*.ts"]}) // 查看相关文件

高级搜索技巧

// 查找所有 service 类
search_code_content({
  query: "export class.*Service",
  useRegex: true,
  fileTypes: [".ts"]
})

// 查找特定装饰器的使用
search_code_content({
  query: "@Injectable|@Controller|@Service",
  useRegex: true,
  contextLines: 3
})

注意事项

安全: 本工具具有读取指定目录内所有文件的权限。请确保你配置的 SYNC_PATHS 指向的是安全的项目目录，切勿将其指向包含敏感信息（如私钥、密码文件等）的系统目录
性能: 对于包含数十万个文件的超大型项目，list_project_files 和 search_code_content 的首次执行可能会比较慢
路径格式: 在与 AI 交互时，请尽量使用工具返回的、带前缀的完整文件路径（例如 [backend/src]/main.ts），以确保 AI 能准确调用工具

更新日志

v3.0.0

新增 extract_function_definition 工具
新增 read_file_section 工具
search_code_content 支持正则表达式和上下文行
修复深层目录搜索问题
优化conversation length使用

v2.0.0

新增 search_code_content 和 read_multiple_files
新增 analyze_project_structure

Available Tools

7 tools

analyze_project_structureC

分析项目结构，生成模块和功能概览

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`depth`	No	目录深度
`scope`	No	分析范围	all

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does ('analyze project structure, generate module and function overview') but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it's read-only, what format the output is in, if it has side effects, performance considerations, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, but it might be overly brief given the lack of other contextual information. It efficiently states what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of analyzing project structure (which could involve parsing code, understanding dependencies, etc.), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only states the basic purpose, there's insufficient information about what the tool actually returns, how it handles different project types, or what 'module and function overview' entails. The description doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't explain how 'depth' or 'scope' affect the analysis, such as what 'depth=3' means in practice or how 'frontend' vs 'backend' scoping works.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool's purpose ('分析项目结构，生成模块和功能概览' - 'analyze project structure, generate module and function overview'), which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the verb ('analyze') and resource ('project structure'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_project_files' or 'extract_function_definition' in terms of what makes this analysis unique versus just listing files.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this analysis is appropriate compared to 'list_project_files' for basic file listing or 'search_code_content' for searching within files. There's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.

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

extract_function_definitionB

提取指定函数/方法的完整定义，包括注释和装饰器

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filePath`	Yes	带前缀的完整文件路径, e.g., '[backend/src]/main.ts'
`functionName`	Yes	函数/方法名
`includeComments`	No	是否包含上方的注释
`includeDecorators`	No	是否包含装饰器

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool extracts (function definitions with comments/decorators), it doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it returns raw text or structured data, what happens if the function isn't found (error handling), or any performance/rate limit considerations. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes key scope details (comments and decorators). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (extracting specific code elements), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the 'what' (extract function definitions) but misses behavioral details (e.g., output format, error handling) and usage context versus siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness is needed for optimal agent use.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter details (filePath, functionName, includeComments, includeDecorators). The description mentions '包括注释和装饰器' (including comments and decorators), which aligns with the boolean parameters but doesn't add new meaning. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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's purpose: '提取指定函数/方法的完整定义，包括注释和装饰器' (Extract the complete definition of a specified function/method, including comments and decorators). It specifies the verb (extract), resource (function/method definition), and scope (including comments and decorators). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_file_content' or 'read_file_section' that might also access code content.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'read_file_content' (which reads entire files) or 'read_file_section' (which reads arbitrary sections), leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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

list_project_filesB

递归列出所有已配置同步目录中的文件

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a listing operation (implies read-only) and mentions recursion, but doesn't address important aspects like: what format the output takes (list of paths? metadata?), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, how many directories are scanned, or what happens with permission errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient Chinese sentence that conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information (recursive listing of files in sync directories). Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and the description is brief, there are significant completeness gaps. While the purpose is clear, the description doesn't explain what the output looks like (critical for a listing tool), doesn't mention behavioral constraints, and provides no usage context. For a tool that presumably returns file listings, the lack of output information is a notable deficiency.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. It appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, which is correct for this schema configuration.

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 action ('递归列出' - recursively list) and the resource ('所有已配置同步目录中的文件' - all files in configured sync directories). It specifies the scope (recursive, all files in sync directories) which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like 'read_file_content' or 'search_code_content'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'analyze_project_structure' which might also involve file listing.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate versus using 'search_code_content' for filtered searches, 'read_multiple_files' for reading specific files, or 'analyze_project_structure' for structural analysis. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context provided.

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

read_file_contentB

读取项目内指定文件的内容，文件路径必须包含前缀，例如 '[backend/src]/main.ts'

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filePath`	Yes	带前缀的完整文件路径, e.g., '[backend/src]/main.ts'

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the file path format constraint, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist), output format, or size limits, which are important for a file-reading operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds necessary constraint details. Every part earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple read operation. It covers the basic action and parameter constraint, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or output structure, which could help the agent use it more effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'filePath' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by restating the path format example ('[backend/src]/main.ts'), which is already in the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: '读取项目内指定文件的内容' (read the content of a specified file within the project). It specifies the verb (read) and resource (file content), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'read_file_section' or 'read_multiple_files' beyond the single-file focus implied by '指定文件' (specified file).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the file path format requirement but doesn't compare to siblings like 'read_file_section' (for partial reads) or 'read_multiple_files' (for batch operations), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

read_file_sectionC

读取文件的指定行范围

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`endLine`	Yes	结束行号（包含）
`filePath`	Yes	带前缀的完整文件路径, e.g., '[backend/src]/main.ts'
`showLineNumbers`	No	是否显示行号
`startLine`	Yes	起始行号（从1开始）

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (read) but doesn't mention permissions needed, error handling (e.g., invalid line numbers), output format, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with files.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted content.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that reads files (potentially involving permissions or errors), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, or error conditions, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (filePath, startLine, endLine, showLineNumbers) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying line-range usage, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 '读取文件的指定行范围' (Read specified line range of a file) clearly states the verb (read) and resource (file), specifying it operates on a line range. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_file_content' (which likely reads entire files) by focusing on sections, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_file_content' or 'extract_function_definition'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

read_multiple_filesB

批量读取多个文件内容，支持glob模式

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`maxFiles`	No	最大文件数量限制
`patterns`	Yes	文件模式数组，如 ['modules//services/.ts', 'config/*.ts']

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions batch reading and glob pattern support but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify file encoding, error handling (e.g., if some files are missing), performance implications (e.g., large files), or output format (e.g., array of file contents). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 extremely concise with just two phrases: '批量读取多个文件内容，支持glob模式' (batch read multiple file contents, supports glob patterns). Every word earns its place by stating the core action and key feature without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (batch file reading with glob patterns), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file contents, paths, errors), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., file size, permissions). For a tool that likely returns multiple data points, this omission makes it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'patterns' as an array of file patterns and 'maxFiles' as a limit with a default of 20. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning glob patterns, which is already implied in the schema's example. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose: '批量读取多个文件内容' (batch read multiple file contents) with the specific capability '支持glob模式' (supports glob patterns). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_file_content' (single file) and 'list_project_files' (listing without reading content). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from 'search_code_content' (which might also read files but with search functionality).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context through '批量读取多个文件内容' (batch reading multiple files) and '支持glob模式' (glob patterns), suggesting this tool is for reading multiple files matching patterns rather than single files or other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'read_file_content' (for single files) or 'search_code_content' (for searching within files), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

search_code_contentC

在项目代码中搜索指定内容，支持正则表达式

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`caseSensitive`	No	是否区分大小写
`contextLines`	No	返回匹配行前后的上下文行数
`fileTypes`	No	文件类型过滤，如 ['.ts', '.tsx', '.js']
`maxResults`	No	最大结果数量
`query`	Yes	搜索关键词或正则表达式
`useRegex`	No	是否启用正则表达式模式

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions support for regular expressions, which is a useful trait, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, pagination, or whether it's read-only. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese: '在项目代码中搜索指定内容，支持正则表达式'. It is front-loaded with the core function and includes a key feature (regex support) without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output schema, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves and what it returns.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning support for regular expressions (implied by the useRegex parameter) but not providing additional context like search scope or result formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: '在项目代码中搜索指定内容，支持正则表达式' (search for specified content in project code, supports regular expressions). It specifies the verb '搜索' (search) and resource '项目代码' (project code), distinguishing it from siblings like list_project_files or read_file_content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools beyond the basic function.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer search_code_content over siblings like analyze_project_structure or read_file_content for finding specific content, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the function but not explicitly stated.

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.

7 tool updatesv1.0.0Aug 15, 2025
- First observedanalyze_project_structure
- First observedextract_function_definition
- First observedlist_project_files
- First observedread_file_content
- First observedread_file_section
- First observedread_multiple_files
- First observedsearch_code_content

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but read_file_content and read_file_section could be confused as both handle file reading with different granularity. The descriptions clarify their differences (full file vs. line ranges), but an agent might initially misselect between them. Other tools like analyze_project_structure and search_code_content are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as analyze_project_structure, extract_function_definition, and list_project_files. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for a project sync server focused on code analysis and file operations. Each tool appears to earn its place by covering specific aspects like structure analysis, file listing, reading, and searching, without being overly sparse or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core operations for project analysis and file reading comprehensively, including structure analysis, function extraction, file listing, and content searching. A minor gap is the lack of write or update tools (e.g., modify files), which might limit full project management workflows, but agents can work around this for read-only tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

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

Related MCP Connectors

hithereiamaliff-mcp-nextcloudOAuth
ai.smithery
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Cloud Storage File Systems Workplace & Productivity
237
gread A
io.github.NitroRCr
An MCP server that gives your AI access to the source code and docs of all public github repos
Version Control Code Analysis Documentation Access
5361
Cortex C
io.cortex.mcp
The Cortex MCP server provides read-only access to real-time engineering context from the Cortex developer portal, allowing AI coding assistants to answer natural language questions about your organization's catalog (microservices, libraries, domains, teams, infrastructure), scorecards (engineering standards and best practices), initiatives (goals and deadlines), and Engineering Intelligence metrics. It includes tools for querying documentation, tracking personal entities, and accessing AI-assisted insights across the entire Cortex ecosystem.
Developer Tools Monitoring Observability
312
Mercado PagoOAuth
com.mercadopago.mcp
The Mercado Pago MCP Server implements the Model Context Protocol to provide AI agents and LLMs with access to Mercado Pago's APIs and tools within compatible development environments. It acts as an intermediary that translates Mercado Pago resources into executable functions (tools) that AI applications can invoke to perform actions and automate flows. The server simplifies integration, enables using documentation to implement or improve code, and optimizes operations through natural language interactions without manual implementations.
Finance E-commerce & Retail App Automation
2

Related MCP Servers

MCP File Context Server
Coding Agents Developer Tools Code Execution
bsmi021
A
license
B
quality
F
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables LLMs to read, search, and analyze code files with advanced caching and real-time file watching capabilities.
Updated a year ago (2025-07-10 23:26 UTC)
6
19
39
MIT
Codebase MCP
Code Execution Version Control Developer Tools
DeDeveloper23
A
license
B
quality
F
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables AI agents to retrieve and understand entire codebases at once, providing tools to analyze local workspaces or remote GitHub repositories.
Updated 2 years ago (2025-02-28 17:19 UTC)
3
29
84
MIT
code-index-mcp
Code Analysis Developer Tools Search
johnhuang316
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that helps large language models index, search, and analyze code repositories with minimal setup
Updated a month ago (2026-07-27 08:14 UTC)
14
1,005
MIT
MCP Local File Reader
File Systems Developer Tools
sworddut
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that allows AI models to safely access and interact with local file systems, enabling reading file contents, listing directories, and retrieving file metadata.
Updated a year ago (2025-03-19 08:30 UTC)
19
10
MIT

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/xueshanisusan/local-project-sync'

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