Semantic Cache MCP

by CoderDayton

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.5.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: read vs batch_read, edit vs batch_edit vs write, grep vs search, etc. No overlapping functionality, and descriptions provide routing rules to avoid ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., batch_edit, batch_read, glob, grep). Even single-word names like 'clear' and 'stats' fit the verb or noun role without breaking consistency.
Tool Count5/5
13 tools is a well-scoped set for a semantic cache file editing assistant. The number covers core file operations (read, write, edit, delete), batch operations, search, glob, diff, and diagnostics without being overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface provides comprehensive file CRUD, batch reading, search, grep, and cache diagnostics. Minor gaps like missing rename/move or directory listing are non-critical because existing tools (edit/delete/write, glob) cover those workflows.
Average 4.8/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 28, 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each match has a 'cached' flag and that setting 'cached_only=true' filters results. It implies the tool is read-only and low-cost by saying 'before you spend reads'. This adds value beyond a simple 'list files' definition, though it could be more explicit about side effects or permissions.
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 three sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance and explains a key feature (cached flag), and the third suggests a complementary tool. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 simplicity (3 parameters, all described, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, key feature (cached flag), and suggests a workflow with 'batch_read'. There are no missing aspects for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the 'cached' flag and how 'cached_only' works ('set cached_only=true to list only files already in the cache'). It also provides usage context for the parameters, making them more meaningful than the schema alone.
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 starts with 'List files matching a glob and show which are already cached', clearly stating the verb (list) and resource (files matching a glob). It also differentiates from sibling tools 'search' and 'grep' by mentioning that the tool shows what is already cached, helping the agent decide when to use it.
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 explicitly advises: 'Use it to discover files and see what search/grep can already access before you spend reads.' It also suggests pairing with 'batch_read' to handle uncached files. While it does not list explicit alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear enough for an agent to understand when 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.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It details that the tool reads smallest files first, returns full content for new files, diffs for changed files, marks unchanged files with no body, and lists skipped files when budget is exhausted. It also suggests recovery with 'read' using offset/limit, providing comprehensive behavioral insight.
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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by efficiency rationale, then detailed behavior descriptions. Each sentence serves a purpose without redundancy; the structure is logical and easy to parse.
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 and the presence of an output schema (which presumably covers return format), the description covers input behavior, edge cases (budget exhaustion, file states), and recovery options. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?
With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining that 'paths' accepts comma-separated lists, JSON arrays, or glob patterns (expanded), and clarifies that 'priority' reads those files first. This extra detail enhances understanding beyond the 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 that the tool reads multiple files simultaneously under a shared token budget. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'read' (single file) and 'grep' (search), and mentions efficiency benefits for caching before search/grep.
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 explicitly positions batch_read as the efficient choice for seeding cache and cheaper than multiple read calls. It provides guidance on when to use it (for multiple files) and hints at alternatives for skipped files (individual read with offset/limit), though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It details statuses ('deleted', 'would_delete', 'not_found'), dry-run behavior, symlink handling (deletes link, not target), and cache eviction. This is comprehensive for a simple deletion tool.
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 three sentences long, starting with the core purpose, then usage guidelines, then detailed statuses and constraints. Every sentence adds essential information, with 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 low complexity (2 parameters, simple file deletion) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: what happens on success, failure, dry-run, and symlinks. No gaps remain.
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 covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds value beyond the schema by introducing cache eviction context, status codes for dry-run, and the 'one path only' constraint. This enriches the agent's understanding without being redundant.
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 'Delete one file or symlink and evict its cache entries.' It specifies the action (delete), the resource (file or symlink), and additional behavior (cache eviction). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting constraints like 'one path only — no globs, no recursion, no real-directory deletes.'
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 explicitly advises 'Use this for explicit single-path removal instead of shelling out,' providing a clear usage context. It also lists constraints that indicate when not to use this tool (directories, globs, recursion). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools for those cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, cheap (~200 tokens), returns match count/line numbers/snippets, raises errors on binary files or empty old_string. This is thorough and exceeds the burden.
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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Each sentence earns its place with specific information about behavior, usage, and limitations.
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 simple tool with 2 params and high schema coverage, description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage guidance, behavioral details, error conditions, and return values. No gaps.
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?
Schema has 100% coverage, and description adds extra nuance: old_string 'must match exactly, including whitespace and indentation' and 'Cannot be empty.' Path clarification 'absolute, or relative to root' adds value beyond 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 'Show where `old_string` would match in a file, without editing it.' This is a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from sibling `edit` which performs actual edits.
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?
Explicitly advises 'use it freely as a probe' and 'confirm an anchor is unique before calling `edit`.' Provides context for when to use, though does not explicitly list when not to use (implied by contrast with `edit` and `grep`).
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?
The description discloses that the tool only searches cached files, uses lexical BM25 matching (not embedding-based), and returns a normalized relevance score and preview. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any side effects, though these are implied.
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 concise with no wasted words, covering key points in 6 sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then provides necessary context and comparisons without redundancy.
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 no annotations and an output schema (present but not provided), the description adequately covers prerequisites (caching), ranking behavior, comparison to siblings, and return format (score and preview). It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that queries are ranked on individual words and that multi-word queries work well, which complements the schema's explanation of the 'query' parameter.
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 'Find cached files by keyword relevance' and specifies the ranking algorithm (BM25). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'grep' for exact/regex and 'batch_read' for caching more files.
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 description provides explicit usage guidance: it states that files must be cached first (using 'read'/'batch_read') and advises when to use alternatives ('grep' for exact/regex, 'batch_read' to cache more). This helps the agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses status ('created'/'updated'), returns unified diff on updates, refreshes cache for other tools, provides content_hash, and explains the known_hash optimization for read.
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?
Concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, subsequent sentences add essential details (usage, status, diff, cache, hash) without any filler.
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?
Covers all key behavioral aspects: return status and diff, cache invalidation, content_hash and interaction with read, and creation of parent directories. Output schema exists but description still explains important output fields.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema parameters (e.g., emphasizing create_parents default), but does not significantly deepen understanding of each parameter beyond what schema already offers.
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 creates or replaces file contents, uses specific verb+resource, and distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'edit' and 'batch_edit' for localized changes.
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 advises to use for new files or full rewrites and to prefer 'edit' or 'batch_edit' for localized changes. Also notes behavior for missing parent directories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses atomicity, partial success (statuses: edited, partial, no_changes), and various edit formats. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does so comprehensively. No contradiction with annotations (none exist).
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?
Well-structured: starts with purpose, then usage advice, then behavior, then parameter details, then closing preference. Every sentence adds value; no repetition or fluff.
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?
Covers all essential aspects: atomicity, partial success, edit formats, when to use, and when not. With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. Fully adequate for a complex tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by detailing the edit entry formats (array and object forms, including line-range options), which are not fully captured in the schema's description.
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 'Apply many exact edits to one file in a single atomic call,' specifying a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'edit' by noting it is preferred for multiple edits on the same file.
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?
Explicit guidance on when to use this tool over repeated 'edit' calls, with rationale (atomic, faster, one response). Also specifies when to call the tool per file (different files) and explains partial success handling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it removes cached file entries, returns count, and that subsequent reads re-seed from disk. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden and does so well.
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?
Short, front-loaded sentences. First sentence captures essence; subsequent details are efficient and necessary. No filler.
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?
For a tool with no parameters and an output schema indicating returned count, the description fully explains behavior, return value, usage context, and when to use. No gaps.
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 in schema, and description confirms 'Takes no arguments.' Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and description adds clarity beyond the 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?
Description clearly states the tool empties the cache and explicitly says it does not touch project files. The action is specific (empty cache) and distinct from sibling tools which are all about file content operations.
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 advises to use rarely, only for stale cache or cold re-seed, and notes that normal reads handle refreshes. This provides strong guidance on when to use vs. avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: exact match requirement, uniqueness unless replace_all=true, return value (count, line numbers, diff), and cache refresh. No contradictions.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections, front-loaded purpose, and no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
For a complex tool with 9 parameters and multiple modes, the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameter interactions, and return value. Adequate given output schema exists.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining interaction of parameters in three modes and behavior of replace_all and empty new_string.
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 it edits one file by exact text replacement, and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like batch_edit (for multiple edits) and write (for full rewrite).
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance for three modes, recommends using edit_preview for uniqueness checking, and names batch_edit and write as alternatives for different needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behaviors: operates on cache only, does not touch disk, returns line-numbered results, and empty results likely mean files aren't cached. No annotations present, so full burden carried.
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 succinct paragraphs with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or filler content.
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 7 parameters and caching behavior, the description fully explains prerequisites, limitations, and alternatives. Output schema exists, so return values not needed.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the caching context for parameter usage, enhancing understanding beyond the 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 searches cached file contents for an exact string or regex, specifying 'cached' and distinguishing from the sibling 'search' tool for concept-level queries.
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 tells when to use: for exact matching on cached files. Provides prerequisite: seed files with batch_read/read. Gives alternative: use search for concept-level questions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: caching on first read, returning 'unchanged' or a diff on subsequent reads, handling of binary files, and the effect of `max_size`. Side effects like caching are explicitly mentioned.
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 tightly written with no superfluous sentences. Core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers return behavior, caching, parameter usage, and alternatives comprehensively. An agent has all necessary context to use the tool 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value beyond schema: explains `known_hash` as server proof of content, `offset`/`limit` for exact line ranges, and `max_size` triggering summarization. This justifies a score of 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 'Read a file, returning as few tokens as possible.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like `batch_read` and `read_image`, making the tool's specific purpose unambiguous.
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?
Explicit guidance is given: 'For 2+ files, use `batch_read`.' It explains when to use parameters like `known_hash`, `offset`/`limit`, and `max_size`, providing clear context for when to use this tool vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: format detection via magic bytes, supported formats, caching policy (never cached), size limit (configurable cap), and rejection of non-images. This is highly informative.
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 into three concise paragraphs, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, return, guidelines, and behavioral notes. No redundant sentences.
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 single parameter and the fact that an output schema is present, the description still covers return format, error cases, and constraints, making it fully complete for practical use.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and its description already covers path handling. The description adds value by explaining format detection via magic bytes, which enriches understanding of how the path parameter is used.
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 'read' and resource 'image file', and specifies the purpose 'so the model can see it'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'read' by indicating it is only for images.
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 'Use this only when the model needs to view the image; for text or any other file type use `read`', providing clear context and an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only diagnostic, no arguments, reports specific metrics. It covers what the tool returns and implies it has no side effects.
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: first states purpose, second lists details and usage hint. Every word earns its place, no filler.
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?
With an output schema available, the description does not need to detail return values, but it already does. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and is self-contained for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (no parameters). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds that it takes no arguments, which is already in the schema, but does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond that.
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 reports cache health, token savings, and runtime diagnostics. It lists specific metrics (storage occupancy, hit rates, call counts, memory) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is not for routine read/edit loops.
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 'Use it to measure or debug — not as a routine step in read/edit loops,' providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools are named, but the context of siblings (all file operations) makes the diagnostic role obvious.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![semantic-cache-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CoderDayton/semantic-cache-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CoderDayton/semantic-cache-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![semantic-cache-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CoderDayton/semantic-cache-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CoderDayton/semantic-cache-mcp)

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/CoderDayton/semantic-cache-mcp'

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