Mimir's Vault

by GopikChenth

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: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: initialization, navigation, search, module creation, updating, and decision logging. There is no overlap in their responsibilities.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_root_node, create_module_node, log_decision). The naming convention is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for managing a project memory graph. Each tool fulfills a specific need without unnecessary bloat or redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers initialization, reading, creating, and updating nodes, plus decision logging. It lacks a delete or rename operation, which are minor gaps for a full lifecycle but not critical for the primary use case.
Average 3.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. 'Fresh' hints at creating new files but does not clarify whether existing files are overwritten or if the tool fails when a graph exists. No mention of permissions or other behaviors.
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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the key action. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.
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?
While the output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no annotations. It lacks guidance on parameter meanings, failure modes, and the relationship to existing workspace state, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions for any of the four parameters, and the tool description doesn't explain project_name, description, scope, or workspace_path. At 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but doesn't.
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's function: initializing a fresh .context/ memory graph with specific files. The verb 'Initialize' and the resource '.context/ memory graph' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools that operate on an existing graph.
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 the tool is for bootstrapping a new workspace memory graph, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools like create_module_node or update_node. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are provided.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the search scope but does not mention read-only nature, result format, pagination, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral details undisclosed.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place and is immediately scannable.
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 the tool's modest complexity (2 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the primary action but leaves the workspace_path parameter unexplained. It is minimally adequate but lacks detail on search scope nuances and parameter roles.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explicitly mention either parameter. The phrase 'keywords or topics' hints at the query parameter but provides no explanation of workspace_path or its default behavior, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('all Obsidian-wikilink nodes in the project memory graph'). This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like create_module_node or navigate_node.
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: search when you need to find nodes by keyword or topic. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, so it relies on implied 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 bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool performs updates or appends under a heading, but fails to describe behavior such as whether it creates missing sections, how it handles existing content, or any permission requirements. This is insufficient 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and scope efficiently.
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 5 parameters, 0% parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description leaves important details unexplained such as mode semantics and defaults. While an output schema exists, the description still feels incomplete for effective invocation.
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 maps section_heading to 'specific section heading', content to 'content', and node_path to 'node markdown file', but does not explain mode or workspace_path. With 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation is not fully adequate.
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 updates or appends content under a section heading in a node markdown file, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_module_node by emphasizing targeted modification rather than creation.
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 phrase 'surgically update or append' implies a precise, targeted edit for existing content, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create_module_node or search_nodes, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the file and fields but does not disclose whether the tool appends to the file, overwrites existing content, or what side effects occur (e.g., file creation, permission requirements). For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no irrelevant detail or repetition.
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?
Although an output schema exists (so return values may be covered), the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a description that omits workspace_path and file behavior. This leaves the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional inference.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only lists the parameter names (title, context, decision, consequences) without adding semantic meaning beyond their names. The optional workspace_path parameter is not mentioned in the description, leaving its purpose ambiguous. Overall, the description fails to provide meaningful parameter-level guidance.
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's purpose: to record an Architectural Decision Record (ADR) in a specific file (.context/decisions.md) with the listed fields. It uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on node graph operations.
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 context is clearly implied: use this tool when you need to log an ADR. However, it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, though sibling tools are clearly different. The description gives enough context for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
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 must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'navigate' without clarifying whether this is a read-only operation or mutates the current context, nor does it mention error handling, permissions, or output details. The meaning of 'using Wikilinks' is also underspecified.
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 with a parenthetical example list. Every part serves a purpose with no filler, making it highly efficient.
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 no annotations and a tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks behavioral context, error behavior, and details about the workspace_path parameter, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
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 compensate. It provides useful examples for node_path but entirely omits any explanation of workspace_path, its default, or its purpose. Thus, coverage of parameter semantics is incomplete.
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 navigates to a specific module or submodule node in the memory graph using Wikilinks, with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_nodes or create_module_node.
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 examples (e.g., 'modules/auth', 'decisions') convey clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the purpose is distinct enough to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given that no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses the main side effect (automatic Wikilink registration) but omits details like file overwrite behavior, failure modes, or required permissions. The core behavior is communicated, but not exhaustive.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and destination. No unnecessary words or repetitions.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, but the description is minimal. It conveys the essential purpose and a key side effect, yet misses parameter guidance and edge cases. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is average for a creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not clarify any parameter meanings. The phrase 'parent overview node' hints at parent_node but does not explain scope, source_files, or workspace_path. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and specifies the resource ('module or submodule markdown note') along with a key side effect (registering Wikilink in the parent overview node). This clearly differentiates from siblings like update_node and log_decision.
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 when to use the tool (creating nodes in a module hierarchy) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the tool fetches a specific file and implies a read-only operation via 'Fetch'. However, it does not disclose error cases (e.g., missing file) or other side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 consists of two sentences, each adding essential information: the tool's function and a critical usage order. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are likely covered there. The description provides the purpose, the exact file path, and usage priority. However, the unclear parameter semantics is a gap, though the tool's low complexity makes it mostly self-contained.
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 schema has one parameter (workspace_path) with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent only sees a string with a default of '.', with no explanation that it likely refers to the workspace root. This is insufficient for a parameter with no schema documentation.
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 fetches the main root node at a specific path (.context/overview.md). The directive 'ALWAYS call this tool FIRST' distinguishes it from sibling tools by establishing it as the entry point.
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 says 'ALWAYS call this tool FIRST before scanning raw codebase files,' providing a strong when-to-use instruction. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'FIRST' directive effectively positions it as a prerequisite.
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:

[![Mimir-s_Vault MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GopikChenth/Mimir-s_Vault/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GopikChenth/Mimir-s_Vault)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Mimir-s_Vault MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GopikChenth/Mimir-s_Vault/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GopikChenth/Mimir-s_Vault)

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/GopikChenth/Mimir-s_Vault'

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