semantic-search-mcp

by adam-hanna

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: v0.3.0
Disambiguation2/5
initialize and reindex both appear to trigger full index builds, making their boundaries unclear and causing potential misselection. Other tools like search_code, pause_watcher, and exclude_paths are well-distinguished, but the core indexing pair introduces significant ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_code, reindex_file, pause_watcher, get_status). However, initialize and reindex are standalone verbs that break the pattern, creating a minor but noticeable deviation.
Tool Count5/5
11 tools is well within the ideal range for a domain-specific server. Each tool contributes to searching, indexing, or management, and there is no obvious redundancy or bloat.
Completeness3/5
The server covers the core search and indexing lifecycle, including search, full/partial indexing, and clearing. However, it lacks a way to remove a single file from the index, and exclude_paths does not retroactively affect already-indexed content, leaving notable gaps for handling file deletions.
Average 4.1/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
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
- 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does mention loading the embedding model, building/updating the index, and reporting progress, but it does not disclose side effects such as replacing an existing index, whether it is safe during active searches, or whether it is asynchronous/cancellable.
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 three concise sentences with the main purpose first. Each sentence adds useful detail: model loading, index building/updating, the force_reindex parameter, and progress reporting. No filler 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?
The output schema likely covers return values, so that omission is acceptable. However, the description does not explain how this tool relates to siblings like reindex or cancel_indexing, nor does it indicate whether initialization is a long-running background process or how completion is signaled besides progress. This leaves notable contextual gaps.
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 schema already fully describes the single parameter (force_reindex). The description restates 'rebuild the entire index' but adds little beyond the schema's own 'Force full reindex even if files haven't changed.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; no meaningful additional semantics are provided.
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 initializes or re-initializes the semantic code search system and loads the embedding model to build/update the code index. While it names the resource and action specifically, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'reindex' tool, which could overlap.
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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reindex, reindex_file, or clear_index. It only explains when to set force_reindex=True, which is parameter-level instruction, not usage context 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action, but fails to mention what happens if the watcher is already running (idempotency), error conditions, or any side effects. The behavior is under-specified for a tool with no annotation support.
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 concise, two short sentences, and directly addresses the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.
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 no-parameter tool, the description adequately states the core action. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it leaves gaps around state prerequisites (must be paused), error behavior, and the overall impact on the watcher, making it a minimum viable description.
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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to add anything further.
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 action: 'Resume the file watcher' and 'Starts watching for file changes again.' It is specific to the resume operation and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'pause_watcher' by being the direct opposite action.
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 'after pausing' implies this tool is used to restart a watcher that was previously paused, providing some context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites like 'only works when the watcher is paused.'
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 provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('re-index') and mentions 'embeddings,' which hints at the underlying mechanism, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on the search index while indexing), whether it is idempotent, or any required permissions. This is a moderate level of transparency for a state-changing operation.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler, achieving an ideal structure for a tool description.
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 tool, the description covers the basic purpose and usage, and the schema handles parameter details. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, status) or mention any preconditions like the indexing system being initialized. Given the lack of annotations, this leaves some gaps for an agent deciding how to interpret the result.
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 already describes both parameters (file_path: 'Path to file to reindex'; force: 'Force reindex even if unchanged') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Re-index a specific file for search') with a specific resource ('specific file') and purpose ('for search'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'reindex' by focusing on a single file, and mentions 'force a refresh of a file's embeddings' for additional specificity.
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 provides explicit contexts for use: 'when a file has been modified but not yet re-indexed' or 'when you want to force a refresh.' It implies this is for individual files rather than a bulk reindex, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, stopping short of a 5.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that cancellation is not immediate (waits for current file) and that partial results are preserved, providing important context beyond a simple 'cancel.' However, it does not cover potential nuances like idempotency or behavior when no job is running, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 appropriately sized at three sentences: the first states the core action, and the next two add essential behavioral details. It is front-loaded, avoids redundant phrasing, and every sentence contributes meaning without clutter.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers the operation and its immediate consequences (delayed stop, partial results kept). It could have mentioned behavior when no indexing job is running, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap and the description is otherwise complete enough.
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 has zero parameters, making parameter explanation unnecessary. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, and with no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add any parameter-related information. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 'cancel' and clearly identifies the resource as 'any running indexing job.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like clear_index or pause_watcher by focusing on cancellation of an in-progress job, and the added behavioral details reinforce its specific purpose.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pause_watcher or clear_index. The description implies use when you want to stop indexing, but it does not state exclusions or mention alternative tools, leaving the usage context ambiguous.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that all files and chunks are removed, and the index becomes empty, with a path to recovery via reindex. This is sufficient for a destructive operation, though it doesn't mention irreversibility explicitly.
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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by a detailed explanation and a statement of consequences. There is no wasted text, and the structure is clear and efficient.
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 parameterless tool, the description covers what it does, the scope (all indexed data), and the recovery mechanism (reindex). It doesn't discuss side effects on other subsystems, but given the tool's narrow purpose, this is complete enough.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed. Baseline of 4 for zero params 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Clear all indexed data' and 'Removes all files and chunks from the index.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like reindex_file or cancel_indexing, which operate on individual items or pending 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 noting the index will be empty until reindex is called, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like exclude_paths or cancel_indexing. There is no direct comparison or exclusion 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the session-only nature and reset-on-restart behavior, which is valuable context. However, it does not state whether patterns are appended to existing exclusions, whether exclusions affect the current index immediately, or any matching limitations.
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 concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the action and scope. The glob examples are compact and the session-only note is a single line, with no redundant or filler content. Every sentence 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate, covering purpose, syntax, and lifecycle. It lacks explicit guidance on interaction with sibling tools like include_paths or how exclusions apply to an ongoing indexing session, but the core usage is well covered and the tool is simple.
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 schema already documents the 'patterns' parameter with 100% coverage, but the description enriches understanding by explaining glob syntax with concrete examples ('node_modules', '*.test.py', 'vendor/**'). This clarifies how patterns are interpreted beyond the schema's generic description, adding meaningful semantic detail.
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 'Add paths to exclude from indexing (session-only)' with a specific verb and resource. The session-only qualifier distinguishes it from persistent configuration, and the sibling tool 'include_paths' makes the opposite purpose, so this tool's role 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides practical usage context with glob syntax examples, clearly implying when to use this tool (to exclude paths from indexing). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like include_paths or mention when not to use it, preventing a top score.
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 states the primary action (removing paths from the exclusion list) and its relationship to exclude_paths, but does not disclose potential side effects, persistence, or error handling for patterns not in the list. It meets the baseline but lacks additional behavioral context.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by the relationship to the sibling tool. Every word earns its place with no repetition.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and relationship to exclude_paths. It is concise and complete enough for its complexity, though it could mention persistence or error behavior.
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 already fully describes the 'patterns' parameter as 'Glob patterns to remove from exclusion list', providing 100% coverage. The description's reference to 'specified patterns' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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 clearly states 'Remove paths from the exclusion list' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool exclude_paths by noting it 'Reverses the effect of exclude_paths'. This makes the tool's 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 Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly names the alternative tool (exclude_paths) and states this tool reverses its effect, providing clear guidance on when to use it. This qualifies as an explicit alternative reference.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation runs in the background and mentions monitoring and cancellation pathways, adding useful context. It does not elaborate on side effects like whether the index becomes unavailable, but the schema covers the 'clear_first' option.
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 exceptionally concise, consisting of three short sentences. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then provides actionable follow-up guidance (monitor, cancel). Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail.
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 description adequately covers the start action, background execution, monitoring, and cancellation. For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Minor gap: it does not mention potential impact on existing index availability during reindexing, but this is not critical.
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 parameters 'force' and 'clear_first' clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, but this is not required given the high schema coverage. Baseline 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 clearly states 'Start a full reindex of the codebase.' This specifies the verb (start), resource (codebase), and scope (full reindex), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'reindex_file' which implies a partial reindex.
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 directs the agent to use 'get_status' for monitoring and 'cancel_indexing' for aborting, providing clear operational context. However, it does not mention when to use an alternative like 'reindex_file' or when a full reindex is unnecessary, so it lacks explicit 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool 'Returns' a specific list of status components, implying a read-only operation. This is sufficient transparency for a status getter, though it does not explicitly say 'does not modify server state' or mention potential limitations like staleness.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and lists the exact return categories without any fluff. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool is extremely simple (no parameters, no output schema), yet the description comprehensively lists all returned data categories, giving the agent enough to decide when to call it and what to expect. Sibling tools do not overlap, so the context is complete.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (vacuously). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. No additional description is needed, and the absence of parameter documentation is not a 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 states 'Get comprehensive server status' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly enumerates the returned data: server state, watcher status, indexing progress, index statistics, and exclusion patterns. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all actions (initialize, reindex, pause_watcher, etc.) rather than status queries.
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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving overall server status, covering multiple aspects. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the sibling tools are all mutating or search operations, so the usage context is unambiguous. A bit more explicit guidance (e.g., 'Use when you need an overview') would have earned a 5.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals the critical side effect that events occurring while paused are discarded, which is essential behavioral information. It does not, however, mention idempotence or behavior if already paused.
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?
Three tight sentences cover action, consequence, and recovery. There is no wasted verbiage, and the main verb is front-loaded.
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 state-toggle tool, the description is complete: what it does, what happens while paused, and how to undo it. Sibling context and the absence of an output schema further reduce needed detail.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The description correctly avoids adding meaningless parameter details.
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 'Pause' and names the resource 'file watcher', making the action unmistakable. It also distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'resume_watcher' by clearly presenting the opposite operation.
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 directs the user to 'resume_watcher' to start watching again, providing a direct alternative. It also notes that events are discarded, which implies it should not be used if event preservation is required, though this is not framed as an explicit when-not.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool 'Combines vector similarity with keyword search' and 'Returns ranked code snippets with file locations and relevance scores.' It does not mention potential side effects or prerequisites like index freshness, but for a search tool this is reasonable behavioral context.
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?
Well-structured with a clear lead sentence, useful examples, return details, and 'Best/Not for' sections. Each sentence earns its place; no fluff despite being longer than average.
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?
Given the output schema already defines return structure, the description covers purpose, usage patterns, behavioral nuances, and comparison with alternatives. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete query examples and explaining the combined vector+keyword behavior, which informs how to set min_score and query parameters beyond the schema's simple 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 first sentence, 'Search the codebase using semantic similarity,' clearly states a specific verb (search), resource (codebase), and method (semantic similarity). Examples and 'Best for' section further clarify it finds functions/classes by purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are indexing/lifecycle tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, and names an alternative ('Use Grep for exact patterns') with a workflow suggestion ('use semantic search to find relevant files first'). This is clear when-to-use and 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.

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:

[![semantic-search-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/adam-hanna/semantic-search-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/adam-hanna/semantic-search-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![semantic-search-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/adam-hanna/semantic-search-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/adam-hanna/semantic-search-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/adam-hanna/semantic-search-mcp'

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