tldr

# TLDR Code Analysis ## Standalone Codex fallback cc-settings does not install the TLDR MCP into standalone Codex. Ignore the Claude `context`, `allowed-tools`, and `requires` frontmatter in that host and keep the task read-only with native tools. Use `rg --files` to map the tree, `rg -n '<symbol|pattern>'` for exact references, direct import searches such as `rg -n 'from .*<module>|require\(.*<module>'`, and caller searches for the symbol followed by focused file reads. Use `git diff --name-only` plus test-name and import searches for change impact. Do not invoke or claim to have invoked a TLDR MCP in standalone Codex. Report the native searches actually run and their limitations. The remaining workflow is for Claude hosts with the configured TLDR MCP. Token-efficient codebase analysis behind the `tldr` MCP server. It returns the symbols, edges, and slices you asked for instead of whole file bodies, so a question that would cost several full reads costs one small structured answer. > No measured savings figure is published here on purpose. cc-settings carried a "~95% fewer tokens" claim for months with no benchmark behind it anywhere in the repo — the kind of number `AGENTS.md` now forbids (*No savings against a run that never happened*). To get a real figure, answer the same question both ways and compare the token counts your own session reports. The engine is provisioned by cc-settings. The tool names below are the stable contract; only the engine behind them change...