yandex-workspace-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
Search and wiki_search overlap, with wiki_search being a subset of the generic search. Fetch could be confused with the specific getters (disk_get_metadata, wiki_get_page), though its ID-based approach differs slightly. Other tools are clearly distinct.
Naming Consistency3/5
The disk_* and wiki_* prefixes create a consistent sub-pattern, but generic tools like search and fetch break the pattern. Naming is readable and mostly predictable, but not fully uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools covering two domains (Disk and Wiki), the count is well-scoped and appropriate for the server's purpose. Every tool has a clear role, and the number is within the ideal 3-15 range.
Completeness3/5
The tools cover search, reading, and retrieval well, but lack any write operations (create, update, delete) for both Disk and Wiki. This is a notable gap if the workspace is meant for more than read-only access, though it may be intentional for a search-focused MCP.
Average 3.3/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 11 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns by saying 'Fetch'. However, the description adds minimal context beyond what the annotations provide—just that it's from Yandex Workspace and uses an ID. It doesn't disclose behaviors like not-found handling, permissions, or rate limits, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. There is no unnecessary filler, but it might be too sparse to be fully useful. Nevertheless, it is efficient and easy to parse.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values aren't required in the description. However, the tool's scope is unclear compared to siblings like disk_read and wiki_get_page. There's no explanation of what 'canonical resource' means or how to obtain valid resource IDs, leaving the agent uncertain about when to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the only parameter 'resource_id'. It doesn't explain what a resource ID looks like, how to find one, or whether it's a UUID, path, or URL. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of guidance.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource as 'a canonical resource by ID', which gives a clear sense of the operation. However, 'canonical resource' is somewhat vague and doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like disk_read or wiki_get_page, which also fetch resources by ID.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It doesn't mention how 'canonical resource' differs from search results or from disk-specific reads, nor does it provide context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
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?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is covered. Yet the description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination, result format, or query syntax, leaving the agent without useful operational details.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose, containing no redundant or irrelevant words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's surface simplicity.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain what results are returned, how search ranking works, or how page and limit affect the output, making it incomplete for a tool with this complexity.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. While 'query', 'page', and 'limit' are self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions or provide usage details such as expected query format or pagination behavior.
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 searches Yandex Wiki pages, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search' or other wiki-specific tools like wiki_get_page.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search' or 'wiki_get_page'. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety aspects. The description's 'List contents' is consistent but adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination or return format. Since annotations cover the main transparency needs, a 3 is appropriate.
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 unnecessary words, effectively front-loading the tool's purpose.
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?
For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain how limit/offset work, what the returned list contains, or any edge cases, making it incomplete for full agent understanding.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't elaborate on 'path', 'limit', or 'offset'. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's basic titles and defaults.
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 it lists contents of a folder on Yandex Disk, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like disk_get_metadata or disk_read.
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 offers no context about suitable use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without selection help.
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, path requirements, or error conditions. It simply restates the purpose without extra value.
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?
One concise, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point with no redundant words.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too minimal to fully prepare the agent for call construction and result interpretation. It lacks details on return value and path requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single 'path' parameter with no description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain the expected format or semantics of the path, leaving the agent without guidance on what to supply.
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 'Get' with the resource 'metadata for a file or folder on Yandex Disk', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like disk_read (content) and disk_list (list files).
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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving metadata, and the context of sibling tools like disk_read and disk_list makes the intended use apparent. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as result format, pagination, or edge cases, but it does not contradict the annotations. Given the annotations, a neutral score is appropriate.
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, focused sentence with the verb 'Search' at the front, naming both resources without any unnecessary words. Every part contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool has a simple interface with an output schema and read-only annotations, so completeness is partially covered by structured fields. However, the description lacks parameter semantics and usage differentiation from siblings, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for either parameter, only names and types. The tool description adds no explanation of what 'query' or 'limit' mean beyond their field names, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions. This provides no added value for parameter understanding.
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 "Search" and explicitly names both target resources (Yandex Disk and Yandex Wiki). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool wiki_search, which likely covers only Wiki, making the scope unambiguous.
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 the tool is for searching across both Yandex Disk and Yandex Wiki, giving a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like wiki_search or disk-specific tools, nor does it provide any exclusions or comparative 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'text content' as a limitation, implying binary files may not be supported. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, file size limits, or encoding behavior, so transparency is adequate but not extensive.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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 read tool with one parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description is minimally complete. It communicates the core function and one limitation, but lacks details on path conventions or potential error scenarios, which would improve completeness.
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 only defines 'path' as a required string with no description. The tool description adds that the path refers to a file on Yandex Disk, giving context to the parameter. However, it does not explain path format (e.g., relative to root, full URL) or any constraints, so the description only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
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 reads text content of a file on Yandex Disk, using the specific verb 'read' and the resource 'file on Yandex Disk'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like disk_list, which lists files, and disk_get_metadata, which retrieves metadata, by specifying content reading.
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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It states what the tool does but doesn't indicate scenarios such as binary files or path requirements, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds the concept of a 'tree' (hierarchical structure) but does not disclose behaviors such as error handling, pagination, or depth limits. Since annotations handle the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately concise for a simple read tool.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and input. It lacks some context about return structure or edge cases, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations.
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% (no parameter descriptions in the schema). The description mentions 'under a Wiki slug', which connects the parameter but does not explain what a slug is, its format, or how to obtain it. With one required parameter and no schema descriptions, more explanation is needed.
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 'Get the tree of pages under a Wiki slug' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (tree of pages) and identifies the input scope (Wiki slug). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like wiki_get_page (single page) and wiki_search (search), as it targets the hierarchical page tree.
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 this tool—when the tree of pages under a wiki slug is needed—but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like wiki_get_page. No exclusions or alternative references are given.
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, return format, or edge cases), but it does not contradict the annotations.
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, clear sentence that conveys the necessary information without padding. Every word contributes to the purpose.
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 tool is simple with one parameter, safe annotations, and no output schema. The description explains the operation at a basic level. It does not describe the return value, but for a get-by-slug operation, the return is relatively obvious. Overall, it is reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity.
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 has one parameter (slug) with 0% description coverage. The description says 'by slug,' which clarifies the parameter's role but does not add format, constraints, or potential values. It provides minimal compensation for the low schema coverage.
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 ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('Yandex Wiki page') and the method of access ('by slug'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wiki_search (searching) and wiki_get_tree (tree traversal).
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 implies when to use the tool—when you have a specific slug for a Wiki page. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling list suggests other tools for different purposes. The context is clear but exclusions are not stated.
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:

[![yandex-workspace-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/denis-samatov/yandex-workspace-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/denis-samatov/yandex-workspace-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![yandex-workspace-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/denis-samatov/yandex-workspace-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/denis-samatov/yandex-workspace-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/denis-samatov/yandex-workspace-mcp'

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