shelfmark
Related Servers
Alternatives to shelfmark
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables local-first hybrid knowledge retrieval from authorized Markdown and plain-text files, combining full-text and vector search with reranking and traceable source references via a single search tool.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceProvides coding agents with persistent local memory by exposing tools to save, search, and retrieve decisions, bugs, and context as Markdown with hybrid keyword and semantic search.4MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to search and ask questions about a local codebase with citations, using BM25 and optional embeddings, all offline.3 npm1MIT
- FlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceEnables coding agents to search locally indexed repositories with hybrid semantic and lexical retrieval, returning exact source citations with file paths and line ranges.4-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to index and search local files, websites, GitHub repos, and packages using hybrid retrieval with reranking, all through IDE chat.4Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to index and search local files, websites, GitHub repos, and packages with hybrid AI-powered retrieval, all locally through IDE chat.Apache 2.0
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct scopes: rag_query searches broadly across code, docs, and commits, while search_knowledge targets only durable knowledge artifacts. Their descriptions explicitly state when to use each, eliminating ambiguity.
Both names use lowercase snake_case and are descriptive, but the pattern differs: 'rag_query' places the technology prefix before the verb, while 'search_knowledge' follows a verb-noun structure. This minor inconsistency doesn't cause confusion, but a unified pattern like 'search_all' and 'search_knowledge' would be cleaner.
With only two tools, the server feels minimally scoped, but for a focused search/retrieval service this is arguably sufficient. The two tools complement each other well without redundancy, though a few more specialized search options could justify a higher score.
The two tools cover broad and knowledge-specific search, including source code, commits, notes, and decisions. Minor gaps exist such as lacking a tool to retrieve a specific document by ID or list available sources, but core retrieval needs are met.