Skip to main content
Glama
datarian

cocoindex MCP

by datarian
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

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 clear and distinct purpose: indexing documents, indexing repos, and searching. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern, with two using verb_noun (index_documents, index_repo) and one using a simple verb (search). This is mostly consistent with a minor deviation.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is a reasonable count for a focused indexing and search server. It covers the core functionality without being too sparse or excessive.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers the primary operations: indexing two types of content and searching across them. While there are no delete or update operations, the server appears to be scoped for basic indexing and retrieval, which is adequately covered.

  • Average 3.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 8 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • 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.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 must carry the full burden. It only says 'Index a document collection', with no details on side effects (e.g., destructive vs. read-only), required permissions, or rate limits. This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

    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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail; conciseness is good but should not come at the cost of completeness.

    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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'index' means, the process, or what the tool returns, making it inadequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the 'path' parameter has no description. The description implies 'path' points to a collection of files but does not clarify whether it expects a directory, a file, or how to specify file types. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

    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 ('Index') and the resource ('document collection'), with specific file types (markdown, text, PDF). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'index_repo' (likely for code repos) and 'search' (a different operation).

    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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'index_repo' or 'search'. The description does not mention 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions code-aware chunking and skipping vendored dirs, which are useful behaviors, but it does not indicate whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. Given that indexing likely involves writing to storage, more transparency is needed.

    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 with no wasted words. It fronts the core action ('Index a code repository') immediately and adds the key differentiators in parentheses. Every word earns its place.

    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 performs an operation with potential side effects (indexing), the description is too brief. It lacks information about the output or success/failure indicators, prerequisites like repository structure, and any associated side effects (e.g., overwriting existing index). With no output schema, the description should provide more context about what happens after indexing.

    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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The single parameter 'path' is implicitly explained by the tool's purpose: it is the file system path to the repository. However, the description does not specify format (absolute/relative), constraints, or expected content. The added value is marginal but sufficient for a simple parameter.

    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: 'Index a code repository'. It adds specific details like 'code-aware chunking' and 'vendored dirs skipped', which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like index_documents (likely for other file types) and search (querying). The verb 'index' and resource 'code repository' are specific.

    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 you need to index a repository with code-aware chunking and skip vendored directories, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like index_documents. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for use, nor 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.

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'semantic search' and filtering, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, latency, pagination, or what happens with no results.

    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?

    Two sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with the main action. Easy to scan.

    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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core functionality. Lacks information on result format, pagination, or how to interpret 'semantic search', leaving some 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 description adds meaning for the source_kind parameter by specifying possible values ('repo' or 'document'). However, with 0% schema coverage, it does not compensate for missing descriptions of query and limit parameters beyond what the schema provides.

    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 verb 'search' and the resource 'indexed repos/documents', distinguishing it from sibling tools (indexing tools). It also mentions the type of search (semantic).

    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 when to use the tool (after indexing) and narrows usage with optional filtering by source_kind. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but no other search tools exist as siblings.

    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-coco MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-coco 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/datarian/mcp-coco'

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