AI Ops Hub

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: file operations, RAG operations, task management, and web fetching are all separate domains. The descriptions clearly differentiate them, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., file_read, task_create, web_fetch), but 'rag_add_document' and 'rag_search' deviate slightly by using 'add' and 'search' as verbs instead of a uniform verb style. The naming is still readable and mostly predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, this server is well-scoped for an AI Ops Hub, covering key areas like file handling, RAG, task management, and web operations. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core operations for file I/O, RAG, tasks, and web fetching, but there are minor gaps such as missing update/delete for tasks or document management in RAG. Agents can likely work around these with the provided tools.
Average 2.7/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 8 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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

Behavior1/5
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 disclosure but offers none. 'Список задач' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what format the output takes, or any limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits). For a tool with parameters and no annotations, this leaves the agent completely in the dark about 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely concise (two words), this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. It fails to convey essential information that would help an agent use the tool correctly. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the minimal content doesn't provide value beyond the tool name.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of task objects), how results are structured, or any prerequisites for use. With no annotations to fill gaps, this leaves significant uncertainty about the tool's operation and output.
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 no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('project' filter and 'status' with enum). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds meaningful context about parameter usage.
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 'Список задач' (List of tasks) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'task_list' in Russian. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve tasks' or 'filter tasks') or what resource it operates on. While it indicates this is about tasks, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'task_create' beyond the obvious naming difference.
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. There's no mention of when to use 'task_list' instead of other task-related tools like 'task_create', or how it relates to non-task siblings like 'file_read' or 'rag_search'. The user must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
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 mentions 'поиск' (search) which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it performs semantic/vector search, how results are ranked, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.
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, efficient phrase in Russian that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity of a RAG search tool (which typically involves semantic retrieval and possibly generation), no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that might overlap (like web_fetch), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'личный корпус документов' (personal document corpus) entails, how documents are indexed, or what the search returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query and limit) adequately. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what type of queries work best, what the limit applies to, or format expectations). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Поиск по личному корпусу документов' (Search through personal document corpus) states the general purpose (searching documents) but is vague about the specific mechanism (RAG-based search). It distinguishes from obvious non-search siblings like file_write or task_create, but doesn't clearly differentiate from potential search alternatives like web_fetch.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for semantic search over personal documents) or when other tools might be better (e.g., file_read for direct file access, web_fetch for web content).
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 disclosure. It states the action (read) but doesn't describe traits like whether it requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., missing files), returns content format (text/binary), or has rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a file reading tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., text content, error messages) or behavioral aspects like file size limits or encoding. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective use.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter documented as 'Путь к файлу' (Path to the file). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as path format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Читать содержимое файла' (Read file contents) clearly states the verb (read) and resource (file contents), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'rag_search' or 'web_fetch' which might also involve reading operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 doesn't mention when to choose 'file_read' over 'rag_search' for document access or 'web_fetch' for external content, nor does it specify prerequisites like file existence or permissions. This leaves the agent with minimal usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('write content to a file') but does not disclose critical traits such as whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior for a mutation operation.
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 in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 complexity of a file write operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, and return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The description does not compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for the tool's context.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for 'path' and 'content' parameters in Russian. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.
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 'Записать содержимое в файл' clearly states the action (write) and resource (file) in Russian, which translates to 'Write content to a file.' This is specific and unambiguous about the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'file_read' or 'rag_add_document,' which might involve file operations, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 scenarios like overwriting existing files, creating new files, or when to choose 'file_write' over 'rag_add_document' for document storage. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 disclosure. It states the action is to add a document, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether duplicates are allowed, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity of a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what happens after adding (e.g., success confirmation, error messages, or how the document integrates into the corpus), which is crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the three required parameters (uri, content, title). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining parameter relationships or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 action ('Добавить' - add) and resource ('документ в RAG корпус' - document to RAG corpus), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'rag_search' or 'file_write', which could also involve document operations, so it misses full differentiation.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a RAG corpus setup, or compare it to siblings like 'rag_search' for retrieval or 'file_write' for storage, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
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 disclosure. It states the action ('create') but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether the task is saved permanently, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions), response format, and error handling, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (title, project, due) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, resulting in the baseline score for high coverage.
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 'Создать новую задачу' (Create a new task) clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'task_list' beyond the basic action, which prevents a perfect score.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'task_list' or 'file_write', leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
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 disclosure. While 'получить' (get) implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, timeout handling, error conditions, or what happens with dynamic content (JavaScript, redirects). For a web fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point with zero wasted verbiage.
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?
For a web fetching tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the content is returned in (HTML, text, metadata), how errors are handled, whether it follows redirects, or any limitations (size, content types). Given the complexity of web fetching and the lack of structured documentation elsewhere, the description should provide more contextual information.
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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema fully documents the single 'url' parameter with its type and description. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema documentation.
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 'Получить содержимое веб-страницы' (Get web page content) clearly states the verb (get/retrieve) and resource (web page content), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'file_read' or 'rag_search' that might also retrieve content from different sources.
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 like 'file_read' (for local files) or 'rag_search' (for document search). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over other content retrieval methods available in the sibling tool list.
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:

[![ai-ops-hub MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Galiusbro/ai-ops-hub/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Galiusbro/ai-ops-hub)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ai-ops-hub MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Galiusbro/ai-ops-hub/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Galiusbro/ai-ops-hub)

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/Galiusbro/ai-ops-hub'

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