Skip to main content
Glama
Fromsko

SiYuan Note MCP Server

by Fromsko
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.4.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: executeCommand runs a command, help retrieves help information, and queryCommands lists available commands. There is no overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tools use camelCase naming, but 'help' is a single word while others follow a verb_noun pattern. This minor inconsistency is acceptable but not perfectly uniform.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools, the server seems underdeveloped for a note-taking application. The tools are limited to command execution and help, lacking any note-specific operations.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is incomplete for a note server; there are no tools for creating, reading, updating, or deleting notes. The server focuses on generic command execution rather than note management.

  • Average 2.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.

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

    • 2 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 15 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under ISC 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, authentication needs, error handling, or any constraints. It simply states 'execute', which is insufficient.

    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 short sentence with no superfluous content. It is concise, but the extreme brevity sacrifices substance, preventing a perfect score.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the complexity of command execution (with nested params) and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error conditions, and behavioral details, leaving the agent underinformed.

    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% with descriptions for both 'type' and 'params' parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation for high coverage.

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

    Purpose2/5

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

    The description '执行指定的命令' (Execute the specified command) essentially restates the tool name 'executeCommand', making it a tautology. It gives no scope or distinction from sibling tools like 'queryCommands' or 'help'.

    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, what types of commands are supported, or any prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the name.

    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 carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only indicates a query operation, but fails to disclose aspects like idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits. The minimal description does not sufficiently inform the agent of behavioral traits.

    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 concise sentence, fitting the tool's simplicity. No unnecessary words, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the key action and resource.

    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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, any constraints, or how to interpret results. For a tool with two optional parameters and siblings, more contextual information would be beneficial.

    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?

    Input schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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's purpose: querying the list of available commands. It distinguishes from siblings 'executeCommand' and 'help' by focusing on listing rather than execution or assistance. However, the term 'available' could be more specific.

    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 'executeCommand' or 'help'. The description does not mention context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without direction on selecting the appropriate tool.

    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; the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential side effects, or rate limits. It is likely a read operation but not stated.

    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 with no wasted words. Appropriate length for a simple tool; front-loaded with the key purpose.

    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?

    No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what the help output contains. Lacks context on relationship to siblings. Adequate but with clear gaps.

    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% with a basic description for the 'type' parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in baseline score.

    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 states the tool's purpose: getting help information for commands. It is clear and specific, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like queryCommands or executeCommand.

    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. No mention of prerequisites 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.

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

siyuan-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

siyuan-mcp-server 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/Fromsko/siyuan-mcp-server'

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