Gemini Embedding 2 MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.2.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: indexing, previewing, listing, searching, context retrieval, removal, and syncing. No functional overlap exists.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., index_directory, list_indexed_directories, search_my_documents. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server covers the essential workflows for local embedding and retrieval without excess or deficiency. The count fits well with the domain scope.
Completeness5/5
Provides a full lifecycle: create (index_directory), read (search, get_result_context, list), update (sync_indexed_directories), delete (remove_directory_from_index), plus a dry-run preview. No obvious gaps.
Average 3.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 9, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'returns' data, implying read-only, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as performance, error handling, or what happens if the result is not found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but missing critical details. It is not verbose, but the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required) and presence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain how to use the parameters or when this tool is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (source, locator, window). The agent gets no additional 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 returns nearby chunks or pages for a previously indexed result, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like index_directory or search_my_documents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_my_documents or preview_directory. There is no indication of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions semantic search and the model but fails to disclose read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior on no results. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that gets to the point quickly. It is front-loaded with the key action, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not cover filtering options or return type, leaving significant gaps despite the presence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no parameter explanations. It only mentions 'documents AND images' but does not detail query, limit, scope, types, path_prefix, extensions, or modalities, leaving the agent to infer from names.
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 performs semantic search over previously indexed documents and images using Gemini 2 Embedding. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like index_directory or list_indexed_directories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for search but doesn't mention when to choose it over siblings like get_result_context 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It suggests a read-only preview but does not confirm that the operation is non-destructive, require permissions, or handle large directories. Minimal behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient, but it omits important details that could be included without much bloat. Still, it is front-loaded and free of redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (unknown content) and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'summarizes' entails (e.g., file count, sizes), how `ignore` works, or edge cases. For a preview tool, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters (`directory_path` and `ignore`). The description does not add any meaning or constraints beyond the schema, leaving the agent uninformed about parameter format, default behavior, or usage.
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 function: previewing what would be indexed before a full scan. It uses a specific verb ('summarizes') and resource ('what would be indexed'), and effectively distinguishes it from siblings like `index_directory` which performs the actual scan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage before a full scan, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `index_directory` or `search_my_documents`. It lacks 'when not to use' or prerequisite information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions 'removes' without clarifying reversibility, scope (index vs files), error conditions, or side effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently, with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema not detailed), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return values, success/failure indications, or any side effects, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'directory_path'. It does not specify format, constraints, or examples, so the agent cannot infer valid input beyond the minimal type information.
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 action ('Removes') and the resource ('all documents and images belonging to a specific directory path from the index'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like index_directory (adds) and list_indexed_directories (lists).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Given sibling tools like index_directory and sync_indexed_directories, the agent lacks information to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description has high burden. It discloses the core actions (scan, extract, embed, store) but omits behavioral details like whether indexing is incremental or full, if overwrites existing data, handling of unchanged files, required permissions, or side effects on system resources.
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?
Two well-structured sentences for the main purpose, plus a terse Args list. Every sentence is informative without redundancy. Excellent front-loading of the tool's primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (file scanning, embedding generation) and presence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers input parameters and common file types but omits recursion behavior, handling of unsupported files, return value, and potential performance impact. The output schema may fill some gaps, but the description could still be more thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds needed meaning by clarifying directory_path as absolute path and ignore as optional glob patterns with examples. However, it does not specify pattern syntax or that ignore works on basenames versus full paths, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
Clearly states the tool scans a local directory, extracts text from specific file types and raw bytes from media files, generates embeddings using Gemini 2, and stores them for searching. This precise verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like list_indexed_directories and search_my_documents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sync_indexed_directories or remove_directory_from_index. It does not mention prerequisites, when to re-index, or when indexing is not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description indicates a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or permissions. For a simple listing, it is adequate but could be more explicit.
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 one clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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 tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema present. The description covers the basic function. Some additional context about what 'indexed parent directories' entails could improve completeness, but it is sufficient for a list operation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there is no omission.
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 lists indexed parent directories known to the database. The verb 'lists' and resource 'indexed parent directories' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like index_directory or remove_directory_from_index.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It explains the process (finding parent directories and re-indexing) but omits details like handling deleted files, potential performance impact, or whether it is safe to run concurrently.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the primary action.
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?
Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient operational context. It could mention that the action is system-wide and may take time, but is otherwise adequate.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, achieving the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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 auto-updates existing folders by re-indexing parent directories of indexed files, distinguishing it from sibling tools like index_directory which handles initial indexing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for updating existing indexes, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools aids in understanding.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

gemini-embedding-2-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![gemini-embedding-2-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlaeddineMessadi/gemini-embedding-2-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlaeddineMessadi/gemini-embedding-2-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gemini-embedding-2-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlaeddineMessadi/gemini-embedding-2-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlaeddineMessadi/gemini-embedding-2-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AlaeddineMessadi/gemini-embedding-2-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server