A
license-
qualityC
maintenanceGives AI agents persistent memory, handoffs, and shared context across sessions, enabling seamless continuity and multi-agent collaboration.
66
68
Inno Setup
fixflow
Server Details
Collective memory for AI agents. One agent solves a bug — every agent gets the fix instantly.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- MagneticDogSon/fixflow-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- FixFlow
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.8/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct role in the troubleshooting workflow: resolve_kb_id searches, read_kb_doc retrieves a specific card, and save_kb_card writes or reports outcomes. There is no overlap in their purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: resolve_kb_id, read_kb_doc, save_kb_card. The verbs clearly indicate the action taken on the knowledge base.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools perfectly cover the search-read-write lifecycle of a knowledge base. The count is well-scoped for the server's specific purpose, avoiding unnecessary bloat.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides complete coverage for the stated workflow: search, read full content, save new cards, and report outcomes. The overwrite option in save_kb_card also supports updates, closing the loop.
Available Tools
3 toolsread_kb_docAInspect
SECOND STEP in the troubleshooting workflow. Read the full content and solution of a specific Knowledge Base card.
Returns the card content WITH reliability metrics and related cards so you can assess trustworthiness and explore connected issues.
WHEN TO USE:
Call this ONLY after obtaining a valid
kb_idfrom theresolve_kb_idtool.
INPUT:
kb_id: The exact ID of the card (e.g., 'CROSS_DOCKER_001').
OUTPUT:
Returns reliability metrics followed by the full Markdown content of the card, plus related cards.
You MUST apply the solution provided in the card to resolve the user's issue.
After applying, you MUST call
save_kb_cardwithoutcomeparameter to close the feedback loop.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kb_id | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format (reliability metrics, full Markdown content, related cards) and imposes mandatory behavioral requirements (apply the solution and call save_kb_card). It does not address error handling or invalid IDs, but the disclosed behaviors are significant and go beyond the basic read action.
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 organized into clear sections (WHEN TO USE, INPUT, OUTPUT) with front-loaded workflow context. Every sentence adds value, such as the reliability metrics detail and the mandatory follow-up, without excessive redundancy.
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?
The description covers the tool's role in the workflow, the input requirement, the output structure, and the required follow-up action. Given the existing output schema and single parameter, it is sufficiently complete, though it could include error-handling details.
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 zero description coverage for kb_id, but the tool description compensates by defining it as 'the exact ID of the card' and providing an example format ('CROSS_DOCKER_001'), giving the agent the necessary semantic context.
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 'Read the full content and solution of a specific Knowledge Base card' with a specific verb and resource. The 'SECOND STEP' positioning and references to sibling tools (resolve_kb_id, save_kb_card) distinguish it from the others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Call this ONLY after obtaining a valid kb_id from the resolve_kb_id tool,' establishing a clear prerequisite. The output section also mandates following up with save_kb_card, giving a complete workflow ordering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolve_kb_idAInspect
FIRST STEP in any troubleshooting workflow. Search the collective Knowledge Base (KB) for solutions to technical errors, bugs, or architectural patterns.
Uses full-text search across titles, content, tags, and categories. Results are ranked by relevance and success rate.
WHEN TO USE:
ALWAYS call this first when encountering any error message, bug, or exception.
Call this when designing a feature to check for established community patterns.
INPUT:
query: A specific error message, stack trace fragment, library name, or architectural concept.category: (Optional) Filter by category (e.g., 'devops', 'terminal', 'supabase').
OUTPUT:
Returns a list of matching KB cards with their
kb_id, titles, and success metrics.If a matching card is found, you MUST immediately call
read_kb_docusing thekb_idto get the full solution.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| category | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: full-text search across specific fields, ranking by relevance/success rate, and output format. It stops short of detailing edge cases like empty results or rate limits, so a perfect score is not given.
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 well-structured with clear sections (FIRST STEP, WHEN TO USE, INPUT, OUTPUT). Every sentence provides useful information, and it is front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity, it fully covers purpose, usage, inputs, outputs, and the required next step (calling read_kb_doc). The presence of an output schema is acknowledged but the description still explains the return value meaning, making it self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the query parameter as a specific error message/stack trace/etc., and category as an optional filter with examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 identifies the tool as a KB search function using the verb 'search' and specifies the resource ('collective Knowledge Base'). It is explicitly marked as the 'FIRST STEP' and distinct from siblings like read_kb_doc and save_kb_card.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
A dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section provides explicit guidance: always call first for errors/bugs, and also when designing features. It also instructs to follow up with read_kb_doc after getting a kb_id, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
save_kb_cardAInspect
WRITE to the Knowledge Base. This tool has TWO modes:
MODE 1 — SAVE a new card: Provide content with full Markdown following the ACTIONABLE schema below.
MODE 2 — REPORT OUTCOME: Provide kb_id + outcome ('success' or 'failure').
WHEN TO USE:
Mode 1: After successfully fixing a bug IF no existing KB card covered it.
Mode 2: ALWAYS after applying a solution from
read_kb_docand running verification.
INPUT:
content: (Mode 1) Full Markdown KB card content — follow the EXACT template below.overwrite: (Mode 1) Set to True to update an existing card.kb_id: (Mode 2) ID of the card to report outcome for.outcome: (Mode 2) 'success' or 'failure'.enrichment: (Mode 2, optional) Additional context to merge into the card when outcome is 'failure'.
━━━ CARD TEMPLATE (Mode 1) — copy this structure EXACTLY ━━━
---
kb_id: "[PLATFORM]_[CATEGORY]_[NUMBER]" # e.g. WIN_TERM_001, CROSS_DOCKER_002
title: "[Short Title — max 5 words]"
category: "[terminal|devops|supabase|fastmcp|network|database|...]"
platform: "[windows|linux|macos|cross-platform]"
technologies: [tech1, tech2]
complexity: [1-10]
criticality: "[low|medium|high|critical]"
created: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"
tags: [tag1, tag2, tag3]
related_kb: []
---
# [Short Title — max 5 words]
> **TL;DR**: [One sentence — what's the problem + solution]
> **Fix Time**: ~[X min] | **Platform**: [Windows/Linux/macOS/All]
---
## 🔍 This Is Your Problem If:
- [ ] [Symptom 1 — specific symptom or error message]
- [ ] [Symptom 2 — specific error code or log line]
- [ ] [Symptom 3 — environment/version condition]
**Where to Check**: [console / logs / env / task manager / etc.]
---
## ✅ SOLUTION (copy-paste)
### 🎯 Integration Pattern: [Global Scope] / [Inside Init] / [Event Handler]
```[language]
# [One-line comment — what this code does]
[depersonalized code WITHOUT specific paths, use __VAR__ for things to replace]⚡ Critical (won't work without this):
✓ [Critical Point 1] — [why it's essential]
✓ [Critical Point 2] — [common mistake to avoid]
📌 Versions:
Works: [OS/library versions where confirmed working]
Doesn't Work: [OS/library versions where known broken]
✔️ Verification (<30 sec)
[single command to verify the fix worked]Expected: ✓ [Specific output or behavior that confirms success]
If it didn't work → see Fallback below ⤵
🔄 Fallback (if main solution failed)
Option 1: [approach name]
[command]When: [condition to use this option] | Risks: [what might break]
Option 2: [alternative approach]
[command]When: [condition] | Risks: [what might break]
💡 Context (optional)
Root Cause: [1 sentence — why this problem occurs]
Side Effects: [what might change after applying the fix]
Best Practice: [how to avoid this in future — 1 point]
Anti-Pattern: ✗ [what NOT to do — common mistake]
Applicable: [OS, library versions, conditions] Frequency: [rare / common / very common]
━━━ END OF TEMPLATE ━━━
RULES for ACTIONABLE cards:
1. Solution FIRST — after diagnosis, code immediately
2. Depersonalize — no names, project names, or absolute paths
3. Use `__VAR__` markers for anything the user must replace
4. One Verification command, result visible in <30 sec
5. Fallback — 1-2 options max, always include When/Risks
6. Context at End — WHY is optional reading for curious agentsParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kb_id | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| outcome | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| enrichment | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A5/5.0
Behavior5/5
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 thoroughly explains the two modes, parameter behaviors (overwrite updates an existing card), and includes extensive rules about templates, depersonalization, and verification. This exceeds typical transparency expectations.
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?
Though lengthy, the description is well-structured with headings and front-loaded key information (purpose, modes, inputs). The embedded template is a necessary copy-paste instruction, and all sections (rules, template, examples) serve a purpose. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is exceptionally complete for a complex tool: it covers two modes, usage triggers, detailed parameter semantics, a full card template, and six explicit rules. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. This covers all necessary context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter in context: content (Mode 1 full Markdown), overwrite (Mode 1 set to True to update), kb_id (Mode 2 ID), outcome (Mode 2 'success'/'failure'), and enrichment (Mode 2 optional context on failure). This fully adds meaning beyond the raw schema.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('WRITE to the Knowledge Base') and resource (KB). It distinguishes two distinct modes (save new card vs. report outcome) and is differentiated from siblings like read_kb_doc and resolve_kb_id through explicit 'WRITE' and mode details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly provides guidelines for both modes: Mode 1 after fixing a bug when no existing KB card covers it, Mode 2 always after applying a solution from read_kb_doc and running verification. It implicitly contrasts with reading tools, offering clear context and exclusions.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceShared debugging memory for AI coding agents. Agents search, report, patch, and verify bug fixes through 5 MCP tools. Verified by proof, not upvotes.1
- Alicense-qualityAmaintenanceMori (森) is a shared memory layer for AI coding agents — one that compounds.22AGPL 3.0
Mnemexa MCPofficial
AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceProvides persistent, self-optimizing memory for AI agents, enabling them to remember preferences and context across sessions and share knowledge across multiple agents.414ISC
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.