spiderchat-mcp-server

Official

by Spider-Chat

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Remote

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 (search_flows, search_memories, search_facts target different resources; unified_search is a combined search). However, get_flow_group and list_flows_in_group both relate to group contents and could be confused, though descriptions differentiate the group details from the list of flows.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern with snake_case (search_flows, get_flow_nodes, list_flow_groups). The exception is unified_search, which uses an adjective instead of a verb, creating a minor inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is well within the ideal range for a focused MCP server. Each tool covers a distinct need (searching, listing, retrieving), and there is no redundancy or excessive fragmentation.
Completeness3/5
The tool surface covers search and browsing well, with flows, memories, facts, and group navigation. However, there is no direct retrieval by ID for memories or facts, no way to list all flows without going through groups, and no create/update/delete operations, which limits full lifecycle coverage if such functionality is expected.
Average 3.3/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
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
- 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.
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, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'search user facts' with no information about result formats, pagination, permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, with no filler. However, it's arguably too short to convey necessary behavioral information, but that's a completeness issue, not a structure issue. For structure, it's well-formed and front-loaded.
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?
The description is minimal and doesn't explain what a 'fact' is, how search behaves, or what the agent should expect in return. With no output schema and no annotations, this is inadequate for reliable invocation, especially given sibling search tools with subtle differences.
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 covers all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since coverage is 100%, the baseline 3 is warranted.
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 tool searches user facts, with a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools, but the resource 'user facts' is distinct from flows and memories, so it's clear enough.
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 sibling search tools like search_flows or search_memories. There is no context about typical use cases or exclusions.
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 disclosing behavior. 'Semantic search' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention any side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or result ranking. The behavior remains largely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using only five words, which is efficient but under-specified. It is a phrase rather than a complete sentence, and while it is not bloated, it lacks crucial context that would make the brevity effective.
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 the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what 'memories' are, how semantic search works, what the importance score means, or how results are ordered. A 1 is appropriate because the description leaves almost all contextual information to be inferred.
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 four parameters (query, limit, category, minImportance) are already documented with descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning, but the schema fully covers the parameters, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 'Semantic search in memories' clearly identifies a search action on a 'memories' resource, which aligns with the tool name. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like search_facts or unified_search, as 'memories' is vague and the difference between semantic search and other search approaches is not explained.
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 search_memories versus alternative tools. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection among the sibling search tools.
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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, exact versus fuzzy matching, how tags interact with query), pagination details despite the limit parameter, or what the response contains.
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 that immediately states the action and target. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no wasted words.
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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't clarify the relationship between query and tags, the result format, or pagination behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.
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?
Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds semantic value by clarifying that the query searches name, description, and tags. This goes beyond the schema's 'Search query' and helps the agent understand the query's scope.
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 tool searches for flows, specifying the searchable fields (name, description, or tags). It distinguishes the resource (flows) from sibling tools like search_memories and search_facts, though it doesn't explicitly reference them or the broader unified_search.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferring this over unified_search or other sibling tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
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. The phrase 'List all nodes' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any potential side effects, pagination behavior, return structure, or limitations (e.g., whether all nodes are returned at once or how many). This is minimal coverage for a tool with no annotation safety net.
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 that fully conveys the tool's core purpose without redundant words or filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.
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 (two parameters, one required), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain the return format or any pagination/filtering behaviors, but these may be less critical for a straightforward list operation. However, since there is no output schema, some elaboration on expected results 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?
The input schema includes descriptive text for both parameters (flowId, nodeType), providing 100% coverage of parameter meanings. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 'List' and identifies the resource as 'nodes in a specific flow', making the tool's function immediately clear. It is distinctly different from sibling tools like search_flows or list_flow_groups, which target different entities or 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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no indication of whether this tool is preferred over search_flows for retrieving flow nodes or if there are any caveats.
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 transparency. It only states the high-level function but does not disclose result format, whether results are merged or separate, pagination, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a search tool without annotations.
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 with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, conveying the core purpose without unnecessary detail.
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 lack of an output schema and the moderate complexity of a unified search, the description should clarify result structure (e.g., whether results are grouped by category) and provide usage context. It fails to do so, leaving important operational 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'query' and 'limit' adequately documented. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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: search across flows, memories, and facts simultaneously. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('flows, memories, facts'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_flows and search_memories by emphasizing the unified nature of the search.
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 across multiple categories at once via the word 'simultaneously,' but it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the individual search tools, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., use search_flows for flow-only queries). Usage context is present but not fully elaborated.
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?
The description reveals the key behavioral nuance of recursion (default false, but can include nested subgroups), which is not apparent from the tool name alone. However, since no annotations are provided, the description does not cover other behavioral aspects like pagination, return format, or permissions, so transparency is partial.
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, front-loaded with the verb 'List' and the resource 'flows', with no redundant information. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.
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 simple two-parameter list operation, the description communicates the core functionality and the recursive option. However, the absence of annotations and output schema leaves gaps about the response structure (e.g., whether the list contains flow IDs or full flow objects) and any pagination behavior, making it only partially complete.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions and defaults, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond echoing the recursive option, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 lists all flows within a specific group, with an optional recursive behavior for nested subgroups. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_flow_groups (which lists groups) and search_flows (which searches), making the 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_flows, unified_search, or list_flow_groups. The description explains what it does but not the preferred use case or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (details including flows and subgroups) but does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or output format. For a simple read operation, the core behavior is clear, but additional context is missing.
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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key included elements. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return content. It does not explain error cases or the exact structure of the returned details, but the mention of 'flows and subgroups' provides sufficient expectation for most use cases.
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% (groupId described as 'Flow group ID'), and the description adds no further meaning beyond that. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('a specific flow group') and explicitly states what is included ('its flows and subgroups'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_flow_groups (which lists all groups) and list_flows_in_group (which only lists flows).
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 when a specific flow group ID is known and details are needed, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_flow_groups or list_flows_in_group. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only nature (List) and the scope ('all'), but provides no details on return format, sorting, pagination, or access limitations. This is acceptable for a simple zero-parameter list but lacks depth.
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 that says exactly what the tool does and why. No fluff 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?
For a zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and the resource. The absence of an output schema means the return format isn't described, but for a simple list operation, this is not a significant gap.
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?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema already fully covers this (100% coverage vacuously). No further semantic benefit expected.
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 action (list), the resource (flow groups), and adds a helpful clarification (folders) plus a purpose ('to understand the organizational structure'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_flow_group (single) and list_flows_in_group (flows within a group).
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 intended use case ('to understand the organizational structure') is implied, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or direct users to get_flow_group or list_flows_in_group for more specific needs.
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:

[![spiderchat-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Spider-Chat/spiderchat-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Spider-Chat/spiderchat-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![spiderchat-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Spider-Chat/spiderchat-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Spider-Chat/spiderchat-mcp-server)

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/Spider-Chat/spiderchat-mcp-server'

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