L’interface est localisée ; les présentations et documents des Skills sont traduits automatiquement par IA dans votre langue. Le code, les commandes, chemins et termes techniques restent en version originale, et le document de l’auteur fait foi.
Explorer les Skills
Documents · SKILL.md

analyze-codebase-for-mcp

analyze-codebase-for-mcp

Analyze an arbitrary codebase to identify functions, APIs, and data sources suitable for exposure as MCP tools, producing a tool specification document. Use when planning an MCP server for an existing project, auditing a codebase before wrapping it as an AI-accessible tool surface, comparing what a codebase can do versus what is already exposed via MCP, or …

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentation de la Skill

GitHub

name: analyze-codebase-for-mcp locale: caveman-ultra source_locale: en source_commit: 82c77053 fence_basis_commit: 82c77053 translator: "Julius Brussee homage — caveman" translation_date: "2026-04-19" description: > Analyze an arbitrary codebase to identify functions, APIs, and data sources suitable for exposure as MCP tools, producing a tool specification document. Use when planning an MCP server for an existing project, auditing a codebase before wrapping it as an AI-accessible tool surface, comparing what a codebase can do versus what is already exposed via MCP, or generating a tool spec to hand off to scaffold-mcp-server. license: MIT allowed-tools: Read Grep Glob Bash metadata: author: Philipp Thoss version: "1.0" domain: mcp-integration complexity: advanced language: multi tags: mcp, analysis, tool-design, codebase

Analyze Codebase for MCP

Scan codebase → fns, REST endpoints, CLI cmds, data access candidates → MCP tool exposure → structured tool spec doc.

Use When

  • Plan MCP server existing project → know what to expose
  • Audit codebase pre-AI-tool-surface wrap
  • Compare codebase capability vs MCP exposed
  • Generate tool spec → hand to scaffold-mcp-server
  • Evaluate 3rd-party lib worth wrapping

In

  • Required: Path to codebase root
  • Required: Target lang(s) (TS, Python, R, Go)
  • Optional: Existing MCP server code → gap analysis
  • Optional: Domain focus ("data analysis", "file ops", "API integration")
  • Optional: Max tools to recommend (default: 20)

Do

Step 1: Scan Structure

1.1. Glob → dir tree, src dirs:

  • src/**/*.{ts,js,py,R,go,rs} → src files
  • **/routes/**, **/api/**, **/controllers/** → endpoints
  • **/cli/**, **/commands/** → CLI entries
  • **/package.json, **/setup.py, **/DESCRIPTION → dep metadata

1.2. Categorize by role:

  • Entry: main files, route handlers, CLI cmds
  • Core logic: business fns, algos, data transformers
  • Data access: DB queries, file I/O, API clients
  • Utilities: helpers, formatters, validators

1.3. Count files, LOC, exported symbols → gauge size.

→ Categorized inventory w/ role annotations.

If err: Too large (>10K files) → narrow via domain focus. No src found → verify root path + lang params.

Step 2: Identify Fns + Endpoints

2.1. Grep exported fns + public APIs:

  • TS/JS: export (async )?function, export default, module.exports
  • Python: fns no _ prefix, @app.route, @router
  • R: NAMESPACE or #' @export roxygen
  • Go: capitalized fn names (exported by convention)

2.2. Per candidate extract:

  • Name: fn/endpoint
  • Signature: params w/ types + defaults
  • Return type
  • Docs: docstrings, JSDoc, roxygen, godoc
  • Location: file path + line

2.3. REST APIs, also extract:

  • HTTP method + route pattern
  • Req body schema
  • Res shape
  • Auth reqs

2.4. Sort by potential utility (public, documented, well-typed first).

→ 20-100 candidates w/ extracted metadata.

If err: Few candidates → broaden → include internal that could be public. Sparse docs → flag as risk.

Step 3: Evaluate MCP Suitability

3.1. Per candidate → MCP tool criteria:

  • In contract clarity: params well-typed + documented? JSON Schema describable?
  • Out predictability: structured (JSON-serializable)? Consistent shape?
  • Side effects: modifies state (files, DB, external)? Must be labeled.
  • Idempotency: safe to retry? Non-idempotent → explicit warn.
  • Exec time: completes <30s? Long-running → async patterns.
  • Err handling: structured errs or silent fail?

3.2. Score 1-5:

  • 5: Pure fn, typed I/O, documented, fast, no side effects
  • 4: Well-typed, documented, minor side effects (logging)
  • 3: Reasonable I/O, needs wrapping (raw objects)
  • 2: Significant side effects or unclear, substantial adaptation
  • 1: Not suitable no major refactor

3.3. Filter ≥3. Flag score-2 → "future candidates" needing refactor.

→ Scored + filtered list w/ suitability rationale.

If err: Most <3 → codebase needs refactor pre-MCP. Doc gaps → recommend (add types, extract pure fns, wrap side effects).

Step 4: Design Tool Specs

4.1. Per selected (≥3) draft spec:

- name: tool_name
  description: >
    One-line description of what the tool does.
  source_function: module.function_name
  source_file: src/path/to/file.ts:42
  parameters:
    param_name:
      type: string | number | boolean | object | array
      description: What this parameter controls
      required: true | false
      default: value_if_optional
  returns:
    type: string | object | array
    description: What the tool returns
  side_effects:
    - description of any side effect
  estimated_latency: fast | medium | slow
  suitability_score: 5

4.2. Group logical categories ("Data Queries", "File Ops", "Analysis", "Config").

4.3. Identify deps between tools ("list_datasets" before "query_dataset").

4.4. Need wrappers?

  • Simplify complex param objects → flat in
  • Convert raw returns → structured text/JSON
  • Safety guards (read-only wrappers for DB fns)

→ Complete YAML spec w/ categories, deps, wrapper notes.

If err: Ambiguous → Step 2 → more src detail. Param types uninferable → flag manual review.

Step 5: Generate Tool Spec Doc

5.1. Final doc sections:

  • Summary: Codebase overview, lang, size, date
  • Recommended Tools: Full specs from Step 4, grouped
  • Future Candidates: Score-2 + refactor recs
  • Excluded: Score-1 + rationale
  • Dependencies: Tool dep graph
  • Impl Notes: Wrappers, auth, transport

5.2. Save mcp-tool-spec.yml (machine) + mcp-tool-spec.md (human).

5.3. Existing MCP server provided → gap analysis:

  • In spec, not impl
  • Impl, not in spec (stale)
  • Spec drift (impl diverges)

→ Complete doc → consumable by scaffold-mcp-server.

If err: >200 tools → split modules w/ cross-refs. No candidates → "readiness assessment" doc w/ refactor recs.

Check

  • All src files scanned
  • Candidates have names, signatures, returns
  • Each candidate scored + rationale
  • Tool specs complete param schemas w/ types
  • Side effects explicit per tool
  • Doc valid YAML (parseable)
  • Tool names follow MCP (snake_case, unique)
  • Categories + deps coherent
  • Gap analysis if existing MCP provided
  • Future candidates list refactor steps

Traps

  • Too many tools: AI works best 10-30 focused. Breadth > depth. Resist every public fn.
  • Ignore side effects: "Just reads" + logs/cache = still side effects. Audit Grep file writes, network, DB.
  • Assume type safety: Dynamic langs (Py, R, JS) may lack type annotations. Infer from usage, flag uncertainty.
  • Missing auth ctx: Fns working in authed web req may fail via MCP no session. Check implicit session cookies, JWT, env creds.
  • Over-engineer wrappers: 50-line wrapper → not good candidate. Prefer natural mapping.
  • Neglect err paths: MCP must return structured errs. Untyped exceptions → err-handling wrappers.
  • Conflate internal + external APIs: Internal helpers poor candidates. Focus external-consumption or boundary APIs.
  • Skip gap analysis: Existing MCP provided → always compare. No gap analysis → duplicate work or stale tools.

→

  • scaffold-mcp-server — use out spec → working MCP
  • build-custom-mcp-server — manual impl ref
  • configure-mcp-server — connect to Claude Code/Desktop
  • troubleshoot-mcp-connection — debug after deploy
  • review-software-architecture — arch review for tool surface
  • security-audit-codebase — audit pre-external exposure
Skills enregistrées