Skip to main content
Glama
Alpha-W0lf

AI Knowledge Base MCP Server

by Alpha-W0lf
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: discover for exploration, search for query-based retrieval, get_context for comprehensive context, and get_status for system health. However, get_context and search may cause slight confusion as both involve retrieval.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Tool names are verbs but mix single-word (discover, search) and verb_noun patterns (get_context, get_status). This inconsistency could be improved by normalizing to a single pattern.

    Tool Count4/5

    Four tools is a minimal but reasonable set for a knowledge base query interface. It covers core functions without bloat, though it could be expanded slightly for more granularity.

    Completeness3/5

    The toolset focuses on reading and exploration but lacks write operations (e.g., add, update, delete content). This may hinder agents needing to modify the knowledge base.

  • Average 3.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 49 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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 must disclose behavior. It mentions 'comprehensive context' and 'optional recent digest' but does not describe side effects, performance implications, or what happens on missing data.

    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?

    Single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, no wasted words. It is appropriately concise.

    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?

    With two parameters and no annotations, the description lacks depth. It does not explain output, error conditions, or how this tool differs from siblings like search. The agent needs more context to decide when to use it.

    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 does not explicitly describe the parameters. The mention of 'recent digest' hints at include_recent, but query is not explained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool retrieves context via shared retrieval with an optional recent digest. It distinguishes from siblings like search and discover by specifying 'context' and 'shared retrieval', though the exact meaning of 'shared retrieval' is vague.

    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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or discover. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

    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 provided, and the description only hints at behavior with 'honest browse/digest/heuristics' without explaining modes, limitations, or auth needs. Lacks detail on how the tool works.

    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?

    Very short and minimal, but contains key purpose and mode list. Could be better organized, and brevity sacrifices parameter description.

    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?

    Despite output schema existing, description omits what the tool returns or how the modes behave. With 3 parameters and no annotations, more context is needed for correct usage.

    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 coverage is 0%, and description only lists mode options without explaining their meanings, nor does it describe days or limit parameters. Minimal information beyond schema defaults.

    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 discovers AI content without a specific query, lists modes, and contrasts with ranking products. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like search.

    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?

    Implies usage when no specific query is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The sibling search would be for queries, but no direct contrast.

    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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that results cite source_id/source_url (not absolute filepath) and outlines the retrieval pipeline. However, it does not disclose if the tool is read-only, destructive, or any authorization requirements.

    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?

    Three succinct sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds behavioral context.

    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 the output schema exists, the description credits the return format. It covers core behavior and a notable constraint (no absolute filepath). Missing details like pagination, ranking, or error handling, but adequate for a straightforward search tool.

    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?

    The description does not mention any of the three parameters (limit, query, hybrid). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond what the schema's type, title, and default provide. For example, it could explain hybrid search behavior but does not.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool searches an AI knowledge base and mentions the retrieval spine (hybrid → fusion → CE), but does not strongly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discover' or 'get_context'.

    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. It mentions the shared retrieval spine but does not indicate when to prefer search over discover or get_context.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations provided, but the description discloses that it does not require embedding/Ollama for index stats and reports Ollama health, which are important behavioral traits beyond a simple status check.

    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?

    Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes necessary nuance about dependencies. No unnecessary words.

    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?

    For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and the key nuance about Ollama. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

    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, so the schema provides all needed info. The description adds no parameter details, but with 0 parameters, the baseline is 4.

    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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current status of the AI knowledge base', and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the Ollama dependency details.

    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 for checking status but does not explicitly state when to use or when alternatives like search or discover are better. The sibling tools are different, but no direct guidance is provided.

    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

ai-knowledge-base-public MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ai-knowledge-base-public MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/Alpha-W0lf/ai-knowledge-base-public'

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