Capacities-MCP-Plus

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_space_info, list_spaces, read_object_content, save_to_daily_note, save_weblink, and search. However, read_object_content and search could potentially overlap in some retrieval scenarios, though their descriptions help differentiate them (one retrieves specific object content, the other searches across spaces).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent naming pattern: 'capacities_' prefix followed by a descriptive verb_noun combination (e.g., get_space_info, list_spaces, read_object_content). This makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand at a glance.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of interacting with Capacities spaces. Each tool serves a distinct function (info retrieval, listing, content reading, saving notes/links, and searching), and none feel redundant or unnecessary for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core operations for the Capacities domain: reading (get_space_info, list_spaces, read_object_content, search) and writing (save_to_daily_note, save_weblink). A minor gap is the lack of update or delete operations for objects, but agents can likely work around this given the focus on retrieval and basic saving.
Average 3.6/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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
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.
View related servers

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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (indicating mutation) and openWorldHint=true (suggesting flexible use), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions adding text to a daily note but doesn't disclose whether this appends or overwrites, how content is formatted, or any rate limits. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds some value but lacks operational details.
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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the target is a daily note, but lacks details on behavior (e.g., append vs. overwrite), error handling, or integration with sibling tools. The annotations help, but more context would improve completeness.
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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it mentions 'markdown text' and 'today's daily note' but these are already covered by mdText and implied by the tool name. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Add markdown text') and target resource ('today's daily note in a Capacities space'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like capacities_save_weblink, which would require mentioning this is specifically for daily notes rather than general saving operations.
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 capacities_save_weblink or capacities_search. It mentions the target is 'today's daily note' but doesn't explain when daily notes are appropriate versus other content types, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints beyond what's in the schema.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation with potentially dynamic data. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, only specifying 'all personal spaces' without detailing format, pagination, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get a list'), making it easy to parse quickly.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't provide details on return format, error cases, or usage context, which could help an agent better understand how to integrate results.
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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the input structure (none required). The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable here as there are no parameters to explain, maintaining clarity without redundancy.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all personal spaces in Capacities'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'capacities_get_space_info' which might retrieve details about a specific space versus listing all spaces.
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 sibling tools like 'capacities_search' for filtered searches or 'capacities_get_space_info' for detailed information about specific spaces, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe, open-ended operations. The description adds value by specifying 'search for content across Capacities spaces' and 'optional filtering', which clarifies scope beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or result formats, leaving some gaps in understanding tool 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 that front-loads the core action ('search for content') and includes key details ('across Capacities spaces', 'optional filtering') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function without parsing verbose text.
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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, 2 required) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description is somewhat complete but lacks output details (no output schema provided). It covers the basic purpose and scope but doesn't address potential limitations, error conditions, or result structures, which could hinder agent effectiveness in complex scenarios.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'optional filtering', which loosely relates to filterStructureIds, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already explains (e.g., searchTerm, spaceIds, mode, filterStructureIds). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 verb 'search' and resource 'content across Capacities spaces', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like capacities_list_spaces (list) and capacities_read_object_content (read specific content) by focusing on search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential search alternatives beyond mentioning optional filtering.
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 searching content with filtering, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optional filtering' which suggests flexibility, but lacks specific scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like capacities_save_to_daily_note for saving content. The context is clear but not detailed enough for optimal agent decision-making.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with potential for unknown endpoints. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it discloses the fallback behavior to search API aggregation and mentions undocumented endpoints, which helps the agent understand reliability and performance implications. No contradiction with annotations.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes two additional sentences that add context without unnecessary detail. It's appropriately sized, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise.
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?
For a read operation with annotations covering safety and open-world hints, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context on behavior (fallback mechanism) but lacks details on return values or error handling. It's complete enough for basic use but has gaps in output expectations.
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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal semantics by noting that the title parameter 'improves search results,' but this is redundant with the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.
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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('full content of a Capacities object by its ID'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'capacities_search', which might also retrieve content, though the focus on a specific object ID provides some implicit differentiation.
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 by mentioning that it 'tries undocumented endpoints first, then falls back to search API aggregation,' which suggests a fallback mechanism but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'capacities_search'. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
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?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and openWorldHint=true (supports flexible inputs), which the description aligns with by describing a save action. The description adds value by specifying that tags must match existing tag names or will be created, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.
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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Save a web link to a Capacities space') and includes key optional features. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, write operation) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic action and optional features, but doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like capacities_list_spaces for space selection. With annotations providing some context, it's minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.
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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'optional title and tags,' which correspond to titleOverwrite and tags parameters, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. This meets the baseline for high 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 specific action ('save a web link') and resource ('to a Capacities space'), distinguishing it from siblings like capacities_save_to_daily_note (which saves to daily notes) and capacities_search (which searches). It also mentions optional features (title and tags) that differentiate it further from basic save operations.
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 by mentioning 'optional title and tags,' suggesting when to use these features, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like capacities_save_to_daily_note or capacities_search. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving usage context partially inferred.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating it's a safe read operation that may return partial data. The description adds value by specifying the type of information returned ('detailed information... including structures and collections'), which goes beyond annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, but lacks details on rate limits, auth needs, or error handling.
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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and what information it returns. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., structure of the response), but the annotations and context mitigate this gap.
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 spaceId parameter fully documented as a UUID. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
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 specific action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Capacities space'), including what information is retrieved ('including structures and collections'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like capacities_list_spaces (which lists spaces) and capacities_read_object_content (which reads content of objects).
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 context by specifying 'a specific Capacities space', suggesting it's for retrieving details of a known space rather than listing or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like capacities_search or capacities_list_spaces, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
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:

[![capacities-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Im-Hal-9K/capacities-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Im-Hal-9K/capacities-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![capacities-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Im-Hal-9K/capacities-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Im-Hal-9K/capacities-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/Im-Hal-9K/capacities-mcp'

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