grounded-rag-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: ingestion, search, grounded answering, collection listing, and retrieval evaluation. There is no overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly delineate when to use each.
Naming Consistency4/5Tool names follow a clear imperative, snake_case style. Most use verb_noun (ingest_documents, list_collections, evaluate_retrieval), though search and answer are bare verbs rather than verb_noun, creating a minor inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5Five tools is well-scoped for a grounded RAG server: ingest, search, answer, list collections, and evaluate retrieval. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5Core RAG workflows are covered end-to-end, including ingestion, retrieval, grounded answering, and quality evaluation. The main gap is lifecycle management: there is no way to delete or update documents or collections once ingested.
Average 4.2/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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.jsonto 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavior disclosure. It conveys that the tool measures/evaluates rather than mutates, but it does not explicitly state whether it runs live retrievals against a collection, requires an existing collection, or has side effects. This is adequate but leaves some operational behavior implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two compact sentences: the first states purpose and metrics, the second defines the case structure and provides usage context. Every sentence 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return values do not need to be described. The description covers purpose, case format, and usage context, but leaves mode/top_k/collection semantics and behavioral details to the schema or inference. This is adequate for a moderately complex tool, but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the shape of cases as `{query, relevant_sources}` and implicitly connects top_k to recall@k, but it does not explain mode (hybrid/dense/bm25) or collection beyond their enum/default values. The partial compensation keeps it at an adequate 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Measure retrieval quality on labeled cases' and names the concrete metrics hit_rate, MRR, and recall@k. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like search (actual retrieval) or answer (generation), establishing it as an evaluation utility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this to quantify quality and catch regressions — e.g. before and after changing chunking or switching embedders.' It provides clear context and examples, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools explicitly.
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 and discloses the main behavioral pipeline: chunking, embedding, and indexing for semantic and keyword search. It also states the return value (chunks added and new total), which adds useful non-obvious information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The key action and purpose appear first, followed by the input options, processing behavior, and return value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main inputs, processing steps, and return output, and an output schema exists for return details. It could mention collection creation behavior or defaults for chunking parameters, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description compensates partially for 0% schema coverage by explaining paths and texts, including allowed file extensions and directories. However, it does not explain the semantics of chunk_size, chunk_overlap, or collection beyond vague references to chunking and a named collection.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (ingest), the resource (documents into a named collection), and the purpose (so they can be searched). It distinguishes this tool from sibling read/search tools by framing it as the ingestion-side counterpart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: before searching, by adding documents to a collection. It also explains the two accepted input modes (paths and/or texts), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It discloses the MCP sampling mechanism, the exact return shape (`{grounded, answer, citations}`), the no-invention behavior when nothing relevant is found, and the fallback to returning grounded context when sampling is unsupported.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded, stating the core purpose first, then explaining the mechanism, return format, and fallbacks. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description thoroughly covers the tool's behavior, return values, and edge cases, making it largely complete for selection and invocation. It is missing parameter-level explanation for `top_k` and `collection`, but the presence of an output schema and the tool's relatively focused scope keep the gap minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the `top_k` or `collection` parameters at all. While `query` is self-evident from the description's reference to a question, the other two parameters are left undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Answer a question grounded in a collection, with citations.' It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like `search` by emphasizing grounded, citation-backed answers rather than raw retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool—when a grounded, cited answer is needed—and explains fallback behavior when sampling is unsupported. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the behavioral context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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 transparency burden, and 'List' plus 'how many chunks each contains' conveys a read-only aggregation-style operation with no side effects. It does not explicitly mention caveats like ordering or rate limits, but for a parameterless listing tool the core behavior is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Exactly one sentence with no filler; the key verb, scope, and output are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple parameterless listing operation with an output schema available, and the description specifies both the scope and the per-item chunk count. No prerequisite or return-shape detail is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties and 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds useful scope information ('ingested,' 'each') that clarifies what the empty parameter list returns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource, 'all ingested collections,' and specifies the returned information ('how many chunks each contains'). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ingest_documents and search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for inspecting ingested collections, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives. The phrase 'ingested collections' signals it is relevant after ingestion, but there is no direct when/when-not guidance.
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 behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful runtime behavior: per-stage scores are included for transparency, reranking is conditional on a configured cross-encoder, and an empty result has a specific meaning. This goes well beyond a bare description, though it does not address rate limits or auth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by mode semantics, rerank behavior, and output interpretation. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return-value details do not need to be repeated. The description covers the key calling nuances: mode options, rerank behavior, per-stage scores, and empty-result semantics. A minor gap is that the collection parameter's role is not elaborated, but the schema title and default make it reasonably clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for the two most complex parameters: it explains what each mode means (hybrid = BM25 + semantic, dense = semantic only, bm25 = keyword only) and what rerank does. query, top_k, and collection are left to their schema titles and defaults, which are fairly self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search a collection and return the most relevant chunks') and clearly defines the output as chunks with sources. This distinguishes it from siblings like ingest_documents, answer, list_collections, and evaluate_retrieval without needing to reference them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: retrieving relevant chunks with sources. It also provides practical interpretation guidance, such as treating an empty list as 'not in the documents.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md: