Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Semantic Search MCP Serverfind the code that handles user authentication and session management"
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.
Semantic Search MCP Server
A local Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI agents to perform semantic search over codebases using natural language queries. The server converts queries into efficient text search patterns (grep/ripgrep) and verifies relevance before returning results.
Quick Setup
Installation
Environment Variables
Set the following environment variables:
REPO_PATH- Path to the repository to search (defaults to current directory)SEARCHER_TYPE- Searcher implementation to use (default:sgr_gemini_flash_lite)
API Keys (choose one based on your searcher type):
For Claude-based searchers:
CLAUDE_API_KEYorANTHROPIC_API_KEYFor Gemini-based searchers:
GOOGLE_API_KEY,GEMINI_API_KEY,AI_STUDIO, orVERTEX_AI_API_KEYFor OpenAI-based searchers:
OPENAI_API_KEY
Available Searchers
SGR (Schema-Guided Reasoning) searchers - Production-ready implementations:
sgr/sgr_gemini_flash_lite- Default, recommended (Gemini Flash Lite)sgr_gemini_flash- SGR with Gemini Flashsgr_gemini_pro- SGR with Gemini Prosgr_gpt4o- SGR with GPT-4osgr_gpt4o_mini- SGR with GPT-4o Mini
Note: Other searcher types (ripgrep_claude, agent_claude, agent_gemini_flash_lite, etc.) are experimental implementations from earlier development phases and are not recommended for production use.
Running the MCP Server
Important: The MCP server is not meant to be run directly in a terminal. It communicates via STDIO using JSON-RPC protocol and must be launched by an IDE or MCP client.
Cursor Configuration
Add to your cursor-mcp-config.json:
After configuring, restart Cursor. The server will be automatically launched when you use the semantic_search tool in Cursor's AI chat.
Note: If you see JSON parsing errors when running the command directly in terminal, this is expected - the server requires an MCP client (like Cursor) to communicate with it via JSON-RPC protocol.
Evaluation
Running Evaluation
Standard mode (single run per query):
Stability mode (10 runs per query to measure consistency):
Stability mode with custom runs (e.g., 20 runs per query):
Evaluate all searchers (compares different searcher implementations):
Additional options:
--verbose/-v- Print detailed per-query statistics--single-dataset- Use only main dataset (exclude easy dataset)--output <path>- Export results to JSON file
Datasets
The evaluation uses two datasets:
Main dataset (
data/dataset.jsonl) - 12 challenging examples across different codebases (Django, Gin, CodeQL, QGIS, etc.) with non-trivial queries where simple keyword matching fails.Easy dataset (
data/dataset_easy.jsonl) - 14 simpler examples designed for faster evaluation and testing. These queries are more straightforward but still require semantic understanding.
By default, both datasets are used together (26 queries total). Use --single-dataset to evaluate only the main dataset.
Metrics
For detailed metric definitions and mathematical proof of perfection, see METRICS_LOGIC.md.
Quick Summary:
Precision@K = TP / (TP + FP) - Fraction of returned results that are relevant
Recall@K = TP / (TP + FN) - Fraction of all relevant items that were returned
F1@K = Harmonic mean of Precision and Recall
File Discovery Rate = Files Found / Files Expected
Substring Coverage = Substrings Found / Substrings Required
The Logic Test: If all metrics score 1.0, the solution is mathematically perfect (see proof in METRICS_LOGIC.md).
See eval/metrics.py for detailed implementations.
Performance Results
Evaluation results for sgr_gemini_flash_lite searcher (10 runs per query, 26 queries total):
Overall Performance
Metric | Value | Stability |
Precision@10 | 0.30 ± 0.38 | ⚠ High variance (CV=127%) |
Recall@10 | 0.31 ± 0.41 | ⚠ High variance (CV=133%) |
F1@10 | 0.29 ± 0.38 | ⚠ High variance (CV=130%) |
Success Rate@10 | 0.40 ± 0.46 | ⚠ High variance (CV=114%) |
File Discovery Rate | 0.61 ± 0.40 | ⚠ Moderate variance (CV=66%) |
Substring Coverage | 0.35 ± 0.39 | ⚠ High variance (CV=111%) |
Avg Latency | 20.6s ± 7.9s | Range: 9.6s - 38.3s |
Stability Score | 73.9% | 16/26 stable queries (61.5%) |
Dataset Breakdown
Easy Dataset (14 examples)
Precision@10: 0.40 ± 0.44
Recall@10: 0.46 ± 0.49
F1@10: 0.42 ± 0.45
File Discovery Rate: 0.92 ± 0.13 ✓ (Good stability)
Avg Latency: 15.0s ± 4.8s
Stability Score: 85.9% ✓ (Good stability)
Main Dataset (12 examples)
Precision@10: 0.17 ± 0.25
Recall@10: 0.13 ± 0.18
F1@10: 0.14 ± 0.20
File Discovery Rate: 0.26 ± 0.30
Avg Latency: 27.2s ± 5.3s
Stability Score: 60.0% ⚠ (Moderate stability)
Notes
High variance in metrics is expected due to LLM non-determinism and the complexity of semantic search queries
File Discovery Rate shows better stability, especially on easier queries (92% success rate)
Latency varies significantly (9-38s) depending on query complexity and codebase size
Results are evaluated on non-trivial queries where simple keyword matching fails
Project Structure
src/- Core MCP server and searcher implementationseval/- Evaluation scripts and metricsdata/- Evaluation dataset and test repositoriesscripts/- Utility scripts for testing and debugging
Documentation
METRICS_LOGIC.md - Mathematical justification for metric selection and proof of perfection
KNOWN_ISSUES.md - Current limitations, known problems, and workarounds
FUTURE_ROADMAP.md - Planned improvements and mitigation strategies