miniCloud Omni-Vault
Server Details
A high-performance, persistent memory vault for autonomous agents. Enables cross-session state management and long-term context storage. Privacy-first: all keys are SHA-256 hashed locally before storage. Edge-optimized for sub-50ms latency via Vercel and Upstash. Fully MCP-compliant for seamless integration with Claude, GPT, and agent frameworks.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one saves a value, the other retrieves it. There is no ambiguity or overlap.
Both tools follow a consistent vault_verb pattern (vault_save, vault_recall), using snake_case and a clear verb_noun structure.
With only 2 tools for a vault service, the count is minimal. While it covers basic save and retrieve, it feels thin for broader expectations.
Missing update, delete, and list operations. The surface only supports create and read, leaving obvious gaps for a full CRUD service.
Available Tools
2 toolsvault_recallAInspect
Retrieve a previously saved value from the miniCloud Vault by key. Cost: 0.001 USDC via Skyfire. Redeemed immediately on each call. Requires a valid skyfire-pay-id header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | The key used during vault_save. Hashed the same way to locate the value. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses cost of 0.001 USDC, immediate redemption, and header requirement; no annotations present so description compensates well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences with no fluff; each sentence provides essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers action, cost, and requirements; lacks mention of behavior when key is missing but adequate for simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds extra meaning by explaining the key is hashed the same way as during save; schema already covers parameter fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a previously saved value by key from the miniCloud Vault, distinguishing it from the sibling vault_save tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context like cost and header requirement but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs vault_save or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
vault_saveAInspect
Persist a JSON-serialisable value under a hashed key in the miniCloud Vault. Cost: 0.001 USDC via Skyfire. Redeemed immediately on each call. Requires a valid skyfire-pay-id header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Unique identifier for the stored value. SHA-256 hashed before storage for privacy. | |
| value | Yes | Any JSON-serialisable value to store. Must not be null or undefined. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost and header requirement, but omits key behavioral traits: whether it overwrites existing keys, size limits, idempotency, error behavior, or return value. This is a partial disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each essential. First sentence states the core action. Second sentence adds critical usage constraints. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks return value details, error handling, and idempotency semantics. For a paid write operation, the agent needs to know what happens on success/failure and whether repeats are safe. This gap reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema; however, it does provide useful context (cost, header) that is not parameter-specific. Baseline for high coverage is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Persist a JSON-serialisable value under a hashed key', which is a specific verb and resource. It also includes cost and header requirements, making the purpose unambiguous. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling vault_recall, the verb 'save' implies storage vs. retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context on when to use (storing values) and prerequisites (cost and skyfire-pay-id header). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the sibling tool name vault_recall suggests retrieval, so usage is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!