Skip to main content
Glama
code-runner-xx

kb-mcp-server

by code-runner-xx
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing documents, searching semantically, and retrieving full content. No ambiguity between them; descriptions clearly differentiate when to use each.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (list_documents, search_knowledge_base, get_document_content), making the API predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools cover the core operations for a read-only knowledge base server: list, search, and get content. The count is well-scoped with no redundancy.

    Completeness4/5

    The set provides essential read operations, but lacks create/update/delete actions. For a purely retrieval-focused knowledge base, this is nearly complete; minor gap for full CRUD.

  • Average 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 10 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?

    No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It lists output fields but does not explicitly state read-only nature or any destructive potential. As a list tool, it's implicitly safe, but more explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

    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 sentences without filler, clearly structured with purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value.

    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 an output schema exists (context signal), the description still lists key metadata fields (id, title, type, status, fragment count, creation time), making it complete for a list tool. No gaps.

    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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description confirms '无参数'. Since schema coverage is 100% and parameters are none, the baseline is 4, and the description adds clear confirmation.

    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 documents and metadata from the current knowledge base, using specific verb '列出' and resource '当前知识库的全部文档及元数据'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_document_content' by focusing on listing all documents.

    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 states when to use: when user asks '知识库里有什么', needs an overview, or before calling get_document_content to obtain document_id. It mentions no parameters. While it provides good context, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the sibling.

    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?

    No annotations provided, but the description discloses behavioral traits: returns fragments with similarity and document title, auto-clamps top_k to 20. Adequate for a search tool.

    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 core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

    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 an output schema exists, the description adequately covers usage, parameter semantics, and return format (fragments with similarity and title). No gaps for this simple tool.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, but the tool description provides meaningful descriptions for both parameters: query as user's words/topic keywords, and top_k with default, max, and clamping behavior. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool performs semantic search on a knowledge base, returning relevant fragments with similarity and document title. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_document_content and list_documents.

    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 says when to use (when user's question involves knowledge base content) and instructs to call this tool first before answering. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic truncation at 8000 characters with original character count noted, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention idempotency or read-only nature, but for a fetch operation this is sufficient.

    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 with four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without waste.

    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 simple nature (one required param, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers truncation behavior and parameter source, which is sufficient for the AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that document_id must be a valid UUID and provides sources (list_documents or search_knowledge_base), which is a significant addition beyond the schema's type definition.

    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 it fetches the full content of a single document by document_id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_documents (lists metadata) and search_knowledge_base (searches). The verb '拉取并拼接' (fetch and concatenate) specifies the action and resource.

    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 states when to use: when the user wants to see the full document content or after a search for more context. It also specifies that document_id must be a valid UUID obtainable from other tools, providing clear usage context and exclusions.

    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

kb-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

kb-mcp-server 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/code-runner-xx/kb-mcp-server'

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