Mode Manager MCP

by NiclasOlofsson

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: v2.0.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a specific action: memory optimization settings, instruction CRUD, storage, and statistics. There is no overlap; 'remember' and 'optimize_memory' are clearly distinct.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_instruction, list_instructions), but 'memory_stats' is noun_noun and 'remember' is a single verb, breaking consistency.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools cover two domains (5 for instructions, 4 for memory optimization) without being excessive or insufficient for the stated purpose.
Completeness3/5
Instruction management has full CRUD, but memory management lacks tools to list, get, or delete stored memories, leaving noticeable gaps in the workflow.
Average 3.5/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on January 1, 2026
- 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency. Description adds no additional behavioral details such as side effects, permissions, or state changes.
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?
Extremely concise at 6 words, but under-specification for a tool with 3 parameters and no schema descriptions. Conciseness sacrifices necessary detail.
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 zero parameter descriptions and missing output schema explanation, the description is insufficient for correct tool invocation. Lacks parameter meanings and usage scenarios.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and description does not explain any of the three parameters (memory_file, auto_optimize, token_growth_threshold). Agent has no semantic guidance for input values.
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?
Description clearly states the tool configures memory optimization settings for auto-optimization behavior. It distinguishes from sibling 'optimize_memory' by focusing on configuration rather than execution.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'optimize_memory' or 'memory_stats'. Agent must infer context from tool names.
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 idempotentHint=true, so the description's claim of 'Get' is consistent but not additive. The description adds that it provides 'statistics and optimization status,' which is useful but superficial; it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.
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 extremely concise at one sentence and 12 words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and contains no extraneous information.
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?
Despite the tool being simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description lacks details about what statistics are returned, what optimization status means, and how the input should be specified. It leaves significant gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and no explanation of the 'memory_file' parameter in the description, the agent has no semantic understanding of this optional parameter. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 what the tool does: 'Get detailed statistics and optimization status for a memory file.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and its purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'optimize_memory' and 'configure_memory_optimization'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these siblings.
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 such as 'optimize_memory' or 'configure_memory_optimization'. It simply describes the action without context.
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 indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds that it reorganizes and consolidates entries while preserving information, which is helpful but does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes.
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 front-loaded with the action and provides key details. No extraneous words or redundancy.
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 simple tool with 2 params and an output schema, the description explains the core functionality but omits usage context (e.g., when to call manually vs. automated), potential performance considerations, and what the output contains. It is adequate but not thorough.
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 50% (only force has a description). The tool description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. It fails to compensate for the undocumented memory_file parameter.
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 states a specific verb (optimize) and resource (memory file), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like configure_memory_optimization (configuration) and remember (adding entries). It is unambiguous.
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 does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions 'manually' but does not contrast with automatic optimization or reference sibling tools. No exclusions or alternatives are given.
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=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, the description does not clarify what happens if the instruction_name already exists (e.g., overwrite or error), nor does it discuss side effects. It adds minor context by specifying the file type.
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, short sentence (14 words) that directly conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word is necessary. There is no redundancy.
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?
While the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain the output or edge cases like naming conflicts or content limits. It covers the basic function but lacks completeness for a creation tool with multiple parameters and potential duplicates.
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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'description and content' but adds no additional semantic details beyond the schema descriptions. No parameter-specific guidance is provided.
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 creates a new VS Code .instructions.md file with specified description and content. It uses specific verb 'create' and resource 'VS Code .instructions.md file', which distinguishes it from siblings like update_instruction or delete_instruction.
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 such as update_instruction. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or situations where using this tool is inappropriate. The description only implies usage for new instructions.
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 indicate this tool is not read-only and not idempotent, which is consistent with deletion. The description adds the file type and directory location, but does not disclose critical behavioral details like whether deletion is permanent, if confirmation is needed, or error handling for missing files. With annotations covering the safety profile, the minimal addition is acceptable but not exceptional.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It fits on one line and immediately conveys the tool's core action and resource.
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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it omits practical details like what happens on success, failure cases (e.g., file not found), and whether the operation is reversible. For a deletion tool of this nature, the description is adequate but leaves common questions unanswered.
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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'instruction_name' with the description 'with or without extension'. The tool description does not elaborate further on parameter meaning, formatting, or valid values, offering no added value beyond the schema.
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 precisely states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a VS Code .instructions.md file from the prompts directory'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_instruction, get_instruction, update_instruction, and list_instructions by specifying the delete operation.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to delete vs. update or list instructions. No contextual cues or exclusions are provided, leaving an AI agent without decision-making support 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 already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds context about retrieving raw content from a specific file type, but does not elaborate on behavior beyond that.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function without redundancy, though it could include slightly more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and input; no missing critical details.
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%, so baseline is 3; the description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it only explains that the parameter is the instruction name without extension.
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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'raw content of a VS Code .instructions.md file', making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like 'create_instruction' or 'list_instructions'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description implies it's for retrieving instruction content but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.
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?
Adds details about automatic scope/language detection and natural language input, but contradicts the schema by advising to 'use only memory_item' while schema exposes scope and language parameters.
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?
Well-structured with examples, but slightly verbose; could tighten the guidance on parameter usage.
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?
Covers use cases, examples, and auto-detection behavior, but could clarify the role of the optional parameters and expected return values.
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?
Provides context for memory_item but downplays scope and language parameters despite their existence in the schema, creating confusion for the agent.
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 stores persistent context, gives concrete examples, and differentiates from sibling tools like configure_memory_optimization.
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?
Explicitly describes when to use (e.g., preferences, coding standards) and mentions clarification prompts for ambiguity, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
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 indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. Description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether the tool overwrites or merges fields, or if there are side effects. No contradiction found.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous detail. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple update tool, the description covers the main purpose. An output schema exists to document return values. However, missing details on whether updates are overwrite or merge could be helpful.
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 33% (only instruction_name has description). Description mentions 'new description or content', mapping to two parameters, but does not add format or constraints beyond parameter names. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given self-explanatory names.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'update' and clearly identifies the resource as 'existing VS Code .instructions.md file'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_instruction, delete_instruction, and get_instruction.
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?
Description implies usage context (updating existing instruction), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
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 provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. Description adds scope (prompts directory) and file type (.instructions.md), which is useful context beyond annotations. No additional behavioral details needed.
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, 10 words, no waste. Every word adds value. Perfectly concise for a simple listing tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, list-only tool with output schema, description is fully adequate. It clearly identifies what is listed and scope. No missing information.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4. Description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate given no parameters.
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?
Description clearly states 'List all VS Code .instructions.md files in the prompts directory.' Verb 'List' and resource specified precisely. Distinguished from sibling tools like create, delete, get, update, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. However, the sibling names imply use for listing all files; for specific files, use get_instruction. Missing explicit when-not or alternative comparisons, but context is clear.
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:

[![mode-manager-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NiclasOlofsson/mode-manager-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NiclasOlofsson/mode-manager-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mode-manager-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NiclasOlofsson/mode-manager-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NiclasOlofsson/mode-manager-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/NiclasOlofsson/mode-manager-mcp'

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