Skip to main content
Glama
apatoliya

MCP-RAG Server

by apatoliya
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    The tools have significant overlap and unclear boundaries. Both 'process_search_query' and 'search_doc_for_rag_context' appear to handle search queries with similar inputs (query strings) and similar purposes (retrieving relevant information). While 'process_search_query' mentions GroundX and OpenAI integration and returns a structured SearchResponse, while 'search_doc_for_rag_context' returns plain text for RAG context, their core functionality is too similar, likely causing agent confusion about which to use for search tasks.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The naming is mostly consistent with a verb_noun pattern ('ingest_documents', 'process_search_query', 'search_doc_for_rag_context'), though 'search_doc_for_rag_context' is slightly verbose and includes an abbreviation (RAG). All use snake_case, and the verbs ('ingest', 'process', 'search') are appropriate for their actions, with only minor deviations from perfect consistency.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the count feels thin for a RAG server's scope, which typically involves more operations like document management (e.g., delete, list), query customization, or knowledge base maintenance. While the tools cover basic ingestion and search, the limited number may restrict agent workflows and indicate an incomplete surface, though it's not extreme.

    Completeness2/5

    There are significant gaps in the tool surface for a RAG server. Core operations are missing: no tools to list, update, or delete documents from the knowledge base, and no way to manage the knowledge base itself (e.g., clear or reset). The search functionality is duplicated rather than expanded, and there's no support for advanced RAG features like chunking or metadata handling, which will likely cause agent failures in complex tasks.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'searches and retrieves' but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or how results are formatted (e.g., pagination, ranking). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

    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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose, parameter explanation, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections more seamlessly into the flow.

    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 tool's complexity (search/retrieval operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, usage context, or return format details (beyond stating it returns a string). For a tool that likely involves data retrieval and potential constraints, more comprehensive information is needed.

    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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'query' as 'The search query supplied by the user.' With 0% schema description coverage, this adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide details on query syntax, length limits, or special characters, leaving some semantic gaps. The baseline is 3 since the description compensates partially but not fully.

    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's purpose: 'Searches and retrieves relevant context from a knowledge base, based on the user's query.' It specifies the verb ('searches and retrieves'), resource ('relevant context from a knowledge base'), and scope ('based on the user's query'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_search_query' or 'ingest_documents', which prevents a perfect score.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'process_search_query' or 'ingest_documents', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

    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 disclosure. It states the action ('ingest') and return value, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting), rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

    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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence adds value, though the return description could be more specific (e.g., success/failure indicators).

    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 complexity (a mutation with no annotations or output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and output specifics. The absence of annotations increases the burden, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

    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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'local_file_path' by explaining it's 'the path to the local file containing the documents to ingest.' With schema description coverage at 0%, this compensates well, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths).

    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's purpose: 'Ingest documents from a local file into the knowledge base.' It specifies the verb ('ingest'), resource ('documents'), and source ('local file'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_search_query' or 'search_doc_for_rag_context', which appear to be for querying rather than ingestion.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file format requirements), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

    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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions the technologies (GroundX and OpenAI) but doesn't explain what 'process' entails—whether it's a read-only search, requires API keys, has rate limits, or affects data. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a tool that likely involves external API calls.

    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 well-structured and concise, with zero wasted words. It starts with the core purpose, then lists parameters and returns in a clear, bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output explanation. It's adequate as a baseline but has clear gaps, especially for a tool that likely involves external processing.

    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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'query' is a 'search query string' and 'config' is an 'Optional SearchConfig object for customization,' which clarifies their roles. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail the SearchConfig properties like 'openai_api_key' or 'bucket_id'.

    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's purpose: 'Process a search query using GroundX and OpenAI.' It specifies the verb ('process') and resource ('search query'), and mentions the technologies involved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_doc_for_rag_context' or 'ingest_documents', which prevents a perfect score.

    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. There's no mention of sibling tools, specific use cases, or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

    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

mcp-rag MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-rag MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/apatoliya/mcp-rag'

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