Skip to main content
Glama
Delagund

LLM Wiki MCP Server

by Delagund
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: ingestion status, listing notes, saving a note, and searching the wiki. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_ingestion_status, list_notes, save_note, search_wiki), making them predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a wiki MCP server, covering essential operations without being too sparse or overloaded.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers core operations (save, list, search, status). Missing a delete or explicit get single note, but list_notes with filters can likely retrieve one, so only a minor gap.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 23 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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permission requirements, default behavior when filters are omitted, or pagination. The description is too brief.

    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 short sentence, which is concise but omits necessary details. It is not verbose, but the brevity harms 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?

    Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the output contains or how to interpret results. The tool is simple, but given zero annotations and minimal description, it is incomplete.

    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%, so the description must add meaning. It only mentions 'filtros opcionales' without explaining the purpose of is_global or project_id. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but not formally documented.

    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 lists notes with optional filters, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (save_note writes, search_wiki searches, get_ingestion_status is different). It lacks detail on the nature of notes but is adequate.

    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_wiki or get_ingestion_status. No exclusions or context provided beyond the basic functionality.

    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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes the tool returns failed/skipped notes but does not disclose what happens if no such notes exist, whether it returns all notes irrespective of other filters, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

    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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words, though the use of Spanish might limit some readers. It is appropriately sized.

    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 that there is an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks detail on the status parameter and potential edge cases. It is minimally complete but could be improved.

    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 mentions 'optionally filters by status' but does not explain what values 'status' can take or its format. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but fails to provide meaningful semantic detail beyond existence of the parameter.

    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 reports notes that have failed or been skipped (SKIPPED), and optionally filters by status. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling 'list_notes' which presumably lists all notes. However, it could be more explicit by contrasting with siblings.

    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 only says 'optionally filters by status' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_notes' or 'search_wiki'. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

    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 the complex behavior: YAML extraction, assignment of project_id/is_global, text segmentation, embedding generation with timeout, and atomic persistence. This exceeds typical transparency.

    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 single sentence is dense but informative. It front-loads the main action ('Ingesta una nota con embeddings') and lists steps. Could be slightly more structured for readability.

    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 complexity and lack of annotations, the description covers key processing steps. It doesn't mention errors, prerequisites, or input format details, but output schema may compensate for return values.

    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%. The description does not explain the parameters (file_path, content) beyond their names, leaving ambiguity about their meaning or expected format.

    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 ingests a note with embeddings, listing specific processing steps. It distinguishes from siblings like list_notes and search_wiki, which are retrieval-focused.

    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 adding a note but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or 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?

    The description explains the hybrid search algorithm, fallback to lexical-only, and project filtering, providing good behavioral detail beyond the absent annotations.

    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 two sentences: first states purpose, second explains behavior. 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?

    Given the existence of an output schema, the description covers the algorithm and fallback well, though it omits mention of pagination or sorting. It is fairly complete for a search tool.

    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?

    The description adds context for the current_project parameter (filtering by project) but does not explain limit or query beyond their roles, partially compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

    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 hybrid semantic and lexical search using RRF, distinct from siblings like list_notes and save_note.

    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 implicitly differentiates from siblings by focusing on search, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives.

    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

llm_wiki MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

llm_wiki 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/Delagund/llm_wiki'

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