mcp-kb-server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct subsystem (wiki, memory, KB, source, summary, dashboard) and operation. Despite 25 tools, descriptions clearly differentiate them; no two tools appear to perform the same function, and domain prefixes (wiki., memory., kb., etc.) aid disambiguation.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'noun.verb' pattern (e.g., memory.store, kb.search, source.ingest, summary.project). The naming uses dot-separated domain prefixes and action suffixes uniformly, making the pattern predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count3/5
With 25 tools, the count is at the high end of the 'borderline' range (16-25 felt heavy). While the tools are organized across multiple subsystems, the overall surface area is large and could be trimmed to reduce cognitive load, though it remains functionally justifiable.
Completeness3/5
The server provides good coverage for memory and KB (full CRUD plus index/search), but the source subsystem lacks update and delete operations, and the wiki subsystem only offers lint/export/link without direct create/read/update/delete. These gaps hinder full lifecycle management for those domains.
Average 3.5/5 across 25 of 25 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
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
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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that it does full-text search over ingested sources. It does not describe result format, pagination, query syntax, authorization needs, or performance characteristics. This minimal information leaves the agent uninformed about how the tool actually behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which could be concise, but it fails to convey necessary information. Given the complexity of four parameters and the lack of schema documentation, the description is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It does not earn its place because it omits critical details.
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?
The tool has four parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the basic purpose. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand input requirements, return values, or edge cases, making it very incomplete.
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 adds no parameter explanations. The four parameters (limit, query, project_id, project_root) have no semantics clarified anywhere. The agent cannot infer what each parameter does or how to use them correctly.
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 'Full-text search over ingested raw sources' clearly states the verb (search), the resource (raw sources), and the scope (ingested). This distinguishes it from sibling source tools like source.ingest, source.list, and source.get, as well as from search tools in other domains (memory.search, kb.search).
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 memory.search or kb.search. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The agent receives no contextual hints for choosing this tool over siblings.
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. It states content is stored verbatim but does not disclose whether storing overwrites existing memories with the same content, how the memory is deduplicated, or if there are any side effects (e.g., triggering indexing). The description is too brief for a write operation on a memory system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences), but it is not well-structured. It front-loads the core action but is too terse, leaving out important contextual information. It could be more concise if it included more meaningful details in the same space.
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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 50% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavior when parameters are omitted (e.g., what happens if no scope is provided?). The complexity of a memory store operation warrants more detail than provided.
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?
Schema description coverage is 50% (3 out of 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. For parameters like 'tags' and 'scope' that lack schema descriptions, the description is silent, creating a gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema partially covers the parameters.
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 verb ('store') and resource ('long-term memory'), and specifies that content is stored exactly as provided. This distinguishes it from siblings like memory.update, memory.delete, and memory.search, though the exact semantics of 'long-term memory' vs. other memory types could be clearer.
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 given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like memory.update (for modifications) or memory.list (for retrieval). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a project context, or when to use parameters like scope vs. tags.
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, the description carries full transparency burden. It only states the basic creation action, omitting side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens on duplicate links. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's core function, though additional details could be added without harming conciseness.
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 7 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description severely lacks context. It does not cover parameter relationships, required vs. optional, return values, error handling, or linking semantics, making it inadequate for proper agent use.
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 coverage is only 14% (only 'relation' has a description). The description does not explain any parameter beyond hinting at types via 'memory, source, or kb'. The meaning of required fields like source_id, target_id, source_type, target_type, and optional fields like project_id and project_root is left entirely to the agent.
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 (create a cross-reference link), the resource (wiki entries), and constrains the types (memory, source, or kb). This distinguishes it from siblings like wiki.lint or wiki.export.
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 like wiki.links (listing links) or other creation tools. The agent receives no context about prerequisites, consequences, or preferred scenarios.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the search mechanism (substring match) but omits critical traits: whether it is read-only, whether it requires auth or project context, what happens with no results, and the impact of truncation. The truncated:true indicator is mentioned in the schema for max_content_length but not in the description itself.
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 clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for usage notes).
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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and 6 sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to specify return format (just 'entries' implied), default behavior (e.g., limit=5), and how parameters like project_id/project_root affect the search. The description needs to cover more behavioral details for an agent to use it effectively.
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?
Schema coverage is 63%, so the description partially compensates by explaining the search scope. However, it does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema for parameters like scope, query, or limit. The description doesn't clarify what 'scope' means or how substring matching interacts with tags.
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 verb ('search') and resource ('long-term memory'), and specifies the mechanism ('substring match over stored content and tags'). This distinguishes it from semantic search tools like kb.search, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memory.list or source.search.
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 substring search versus alternatives like full-text search (use_fts flag exists in schema but is not mentioned). It also doesn't clarify how this tool relates to sibling tools such as memory.list, kb.search, or source.search, leaving a significant usage gap for the agent.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions writing HTML to ./temp, which is important side-effect context. However, it does not disclose whether the dashboard runs a local server (port parameter implies it), whether it is read-only or destructive, or any authentication or cleanup requirements. This is adequate but incomplete.
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, moderately dense sentence that covers purpose and a key side effect (HTML in ./temp). It is not verbose, though it packs multiple concepts together. One sentence is acceptable.
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 4 parameters with no required ones, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify the tool's behavior more thoroughly (e.g., what the dashboard contains, how the server is started/stopped, the temp file lifecycle). It is minimally complete but leaves many operational details ambiguous.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; for example, it doesn't explain how 'port' is used or that 'project_root' auto-detects project_id, though that is inferred from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 generates an interactive dashboard for browsing and managing the knowledge base and project memory. The verb 'generate' and resource 'dashboard' are specific, and the side effect (HTML written to ./temp) is noted. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from numerous sibling tools like memory.list or kb.search, which also relate to browsing.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many memory and kb management siblings, the description lacks context for appropriate invocation (e.g., when to use dashboard.projects vs memory.list for browsing).
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?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It correctly discloses that the tool is mutating ('replaces content and/or tags'), but it does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether expiry is cleared if not provided, or if missing fields leave old values untouched). The description is adequate but not deeply transparent.
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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no fluff, but it could be more structured to list behavioral details. It earns its place.
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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks guidance on partial updates (e.g., providing only 'id' and 'tags' leaves 'content' unchanged) and does not explain the relationship between 'project_id' and 'project_root'. It is minimally complete for a simple mutation tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline starts at 3. The description adds that the tool 'replaces content and/or tags', which restates the schema. It does not clarify parameter interactions (e.g., that 'expires_at' can be set to empty string to remove expiry) beyond the schema, so the added value is minimal.
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 'Update' and resources 'memory entry', explaining it replaces content and/or tags. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memory.store' (which creates) or 'memory.delete', though the intent is clear enough.
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 states 'Use to correct or refine stored knowledge,' which implies when to use it, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it does not clarify that partial updates require providing only the fields to change, nor does it distinguish from 'memory.store' for creation.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It correctly states that data is exported as markdown files to a directory, implying a write side effect. However, it does not disclose whether the operation modifies the wiki data, if it is reversible, or what happens if the directory already exists.
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, concise sentence that covers the main action and outputs. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Slightly more detail on parameter roles could improve it without harming conciseness.
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?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a bit more context is needed. The description covers the overall purpose and outputs, but omits return format, error conditions, and the effect of the individual boolean flags. It is adequate but not thorough.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 17%, but the description lists the resource categories (sources, KB, memory) that map to the boolean parameters. The meaning of 'project_id' and 'project_root' is not described beyond the schema. The description adds some value by grouping what is exported, but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.
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 specific verbs ('Export') and resources ('wiki data (raw sources, KB entries, memory)') and specifies the output format ('markdown files to a directory'). It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'wiki.link' or 'source.ingest', but the overall purpose is clear.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'source.ingest' or 'kb.get'. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or 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.
Behavior3/5
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 states it lists raw sources, which is a read operation (no destruction, no mutation). It hints at pagination via parameters (limit, offset) but doesn't clarify pagination behavior (e.g., order, total count). It does not disclose what 'raw' means (e.g., unfiltered, unformatted) or whether the list is sorted. Adequate but not detailed.
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: 'List all raw sources ingested for a project.' This is concise and immediately communicates the action. However, it could be slightly more structured by adding a brief clarification about the 'raw' qualifier or the meaning of project_root vs project_id. Minimal waste, but room for one more sentence of value.
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 presence of sibling tools like source.search, source.get, and source.ingest, the description is incomplete for a tool with zero annotations and no output schema. It does not clarify what constitutes a 'raw source' versus a processed one, whether there is any indexing impact, or how pagination works. For a tool with 4 parameters and no schema coverage, more contextual detail is needed to compensate.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for all four parameters. The description only mentions raw sources and project, but doesn't elaborate on any parameter. limit, offset, project_id, and project_root are not explained in the description text. The agent is left to infer meaning from parameter names alone (e.g., limit and offset are standard pagination). The description provides no added value beyond the schema, scoring a baseline 3.
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 ('List') and resource ('raw sources ingested for a project'), which clearly identifies the tool's action and scope. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like source.ingest (which adds data) and source.search (which filters). The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the resource scope (raw sources) in a way that contrasts with other source tools, but it's sufficiently clear.
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 browsing raw sources of a project, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like source.search or source.get. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) or exclusions. The tool description does not help the agent decide between this and sibling tools beyond the basic intent.
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 does not mention whether the operation is read-only or destructive, if pagination or limits apply, what authentication is needed, or how output is structured. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.
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 that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.
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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the output format, link types, or how project identifiers are used. For a tool listing links, an agent needs to know if results are paginated or how to interpret the return value.
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%, meaning the description must compensate. However, the description only clarifies the 'direction' parameter implicitly (inbound/outbound/both) and does not explain 'entry_id', 'project_id', or 'project_root'. The agent has insufficient parameter context beyond names and types.
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 cross-reference links for a given entry, specifying the types of links (inbound, outbound, or both). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like wiki.link (singular) and other wiki tools that perform different operations.
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 for getting link relationships of an entry but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wiki.link (singular link) or search tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies creation ('Add a document') and mentions a required follow-up ('regenerate the index page'), suggesting the tool does not automatically update the index. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to existing documents with the same title, or if authentication 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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, each earning its place: one for the core action, one for the required post-step. No wasted 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?
Given 7 parameters (only 2 required) and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain key parameters like qdrantUrl, qdrantCollection, source, and vector, leaving an AI agent with minimal guidance on how to use the tool correctly. The post-indexing instruction is useful but not sufficient for a complex tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 14% (only project_id has a description). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schemas provide, leaving six undocumented parameters. A baseline 3 is appropriate but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'document to the knowledge base', distinguishing it from siblings like kb.search and kb.index. However, it does not differentiate from other kb tools like kb.update or kb.init.
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 provides a specific when-to-use instruction: 'After adding, regenerate the index page with kb.index.' This gives a clear next step but does not explain when not to use this tool (e.g., for updating or searching) or specify prerequisites for use.
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the two search algorithms (FTS5 and vector similarity) and the condition for using vector mode. It does not discuss side effects, authentication, rate limits, or return format, but the core behavior is well described. A 4 reflects good transparency missing some details like truncation behavior.
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 two sentences plus a tip, all front-loaded with essential information. No extraneous words. The first sentence states purpose and modes, the second provides a valuable usage tip. This is concise and well-structured, earning a 5.
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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use vector search (requires qdrantUrl and qdrantCollection), does not mention the limit parameter, and does not describe the return format or truncation behavior. Important details are missing, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context. Score 2.
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 low at 29% (only 2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions 'vector' but does not explain the other parameters: limit, qdrantUrl, qdrantCollection, project_id, or max_content_length. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, which is insufficient given the low coverage. A 2 is appropriate.
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 the knowledge base and specifies two search modes: SQLite FTS5 by default and optional Qdrant vector similarity when a vector is provided. This is a specific verb+resource+modes. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like memory.search or source.search, the 'kb' prefix and mention of 'knowledge base' provide sufficient context. A 4 is appropriate as it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 includes a tip to call kb.index first to read the table of contents before searching blind, which provides a usage guideline about a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory.search for semantic search) or when not to use it. This is minimal guidance, earning a 3.
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 description explicitly states that the tool does NOT store anything automatically, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose other traits like whether it requires specific permissions, whether it is read-only, or what happens if no stored summary exists.
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 two sentences and to the point. It front-loads the primary action and key constraint. However, the first sentence is somewhat dense and could be slightly restructured for easier parsing.
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 has 6 parameters with only 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves open questions about return format, error cases (e.g., missing stored summary), and parameter dependencies. It is moderately complete but could benefit from more guidance.
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?
Schema description coverage is 50%, meaning three parameters have descriptions (project_id, auto_discover, include_files). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for those parameters and none for the undocumented ones (include_kb, project_root, include_memory). The description does not explain parameter interactions or default behaviors.
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 verb ('Generate') and the resource ('delta project knowledge summary'), and explains the mechanism ('comparing current authoritative project state against last stored summary'). It distinguishes itself from a sibling like summary.project by focusing on change-only output. However, it could be more explicit about the verb phrase being 'generate delta'.
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 (to get a change-only summary without storage), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites or the last stored summary needing to exist.
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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but doesn't explain what 'health status and metrics' entails, potential errors, or any side effects. There is no information about output format or whether the check itself could be disruptive, leaving significant ambiguity.
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-formed sentence with no filler words. It directly states the action and target, making it highly concise and appropriately front-loaded.
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?
The tool has a simple interface (one optional boolean) and no output schema, so the description needs to compensate by explaining return values and parameter effects. It only says 'health status and metrics', which is vague and doesn't inform the agent about the shape of the response or what 'detailed' does. This leaves the agent under-informed for invocation.
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?
The input schema has one parameter, 'detailed', with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The parameter name 'detailed' offers some hint, but the description fails to clarify its effect on the returned metrics.
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 ('server health status and metrics'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from all siblings, which cover wiki, memory, knowledge base, summaries, dashboards, and source ingestion, none of which relate to health checks.
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 when to use this tool: whenever server health status or metrics are needed. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, none of the sibling tools serve a similar purpose, so no exclusions are necessary. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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 only indicates a read operation by using 'Fetch', but does not mention authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., missing ID), rate limits, or the nature of the returned content. The description is too skeletal to provide adequate 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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides immediate usage guidance. 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 lack of output schema, annotations, and low schema coverage for parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe the return format, error behavior, or the role of the optional parameters. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, more detail is needed to make it self-contained.
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 only 33% (only 'id' has a brief description). The tool description does not add any meaning for the 'project_id' and 'project_root' parameters, leaving their purpose entirely unclear. The description only implicitly references the 'id' parameter. This fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.
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 ('Fetch the full content of a single ingested source by ID') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like source.search by specifying it is used after a search to retrieve the complete text of a specific document. The verb+resource+scope pattern is specific and unambiguous.
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 advises using this tool after source.search, which provides clear context for when to use it. While it does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives beyond source.search, the guidance is direct and actionable, earning a high score but not a perfect 5 due to lack of explicit not-to-use scenarios.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that ingestion is only the first step and that additional processing is required (KB extraction, cross-referencing, index/changelog updates), which is useful. However, it omits side effects such as overwrite behavior, permission requirements, reversibility, and document size limits, leaving gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the core purpose concisely, and the second provides a direct reference to the follow-up workflow. It is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no redundant information.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide complete context. While it names the raw sources layer and the post-ingestion workflow, it fails to explain essential parameter semantics, project context (project_id/project_root), and any behavioral constraints. The workflow reference is helpful but cannot compensate for the missing operational details.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions accepted document types (md, txt, csv, pdf), which loosely implies the 'files' parameter, but it does not explain any of the parameters (files, project_id, project_root) or how to provide content vs. file_path. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly map inputs.
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 ('Ingest') and clearly identifies the resource ('documents ... into the raw sources layer'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like source.get/source.search, which are retrieval operations, and from kb.add, which targets the KB layer.
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 for adding raw documents and includes a post-ingestion workflow pointer, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., source.get for reading) or provide exclusions. The workflow reference gives some contextual guidance but not direct selection criteria.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the need to regenerate the index after deletion, implying the operation does not automatically update the index. However, it omits other behaviors like permissions, reversibility, or error handling. The disclosure is helpful but incomplete.
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 uses only two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second provides essential follow-up context. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 deletion tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the primary action and a critical post-condition (index regeneration). It lacks details about return values or error handling, but given the low complexity, it is largely sufficient.
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 already provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Delete a KB document by ID') and the resource ('KB document'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kb.add, kb.search, etc., which have different verbs.
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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The only guideline is a post-deletion instruction to regenerate the index, which is more about follow-up action than selection criteria.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (does NOT store results automatically), which is valuable. Yet it does not state whether the operation has any side effects, requires special permissions, or returns a specific format. The 'ground-truth–aware' phrasing is vague and does not clarify what happens to the snapshot.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action and inputs, the second clarifies a critical non-behavior. Excellent concision.
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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description has significant gaps. It does not describe what the snapshot contains, its return format, or any prerequisites/failure conditions. The vague 'project knowledge snapshot' leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's deliverable, and no usage guidance is provided. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 50%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly maps the boolean parameters (include_kb, include_memory, include_files) by naming 'authoritative instruction files, long-term memory, and the knowledge base,' giving agents a semantic model. However, it does not explicitly describe each parameter, and project_root remains minimally explained beyond its 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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('ground-truth–aware project knowledge snapshot'), and names three input sources. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like summary.delta by emphasizing the 'does NOT store results automatically' behavior, which also distinguishes it from memory/kb write tools.
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 (whenever a project knowledge snapshot is needed) and mentions that it does not store results, which hints at when not to use it (if persistence is required). However, it lacks explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives like summary.delta or memory/kb tools, and provides no positive selection criteria.
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 only says 'delete' which implies a destructive action, but it does not confirm whether deletion is irreversible, if it requires confirmation, or what happens to related data. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 one sentence long, front-loads the action, and every word contributes. No filler or repetition.
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?
Given the presence of sibling tools (like 'memory.update', 'memory.list') and the high schema coverage, the description adequately distinguishes its purpose. However, the lack of disclosure about permanence of deletion and absence of output schema explanation slightly reduces 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?
Schema coverage is high (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the three parameters. It neither clarifies the relationship between 'project_id' and 'project_root' nor explains scenarios where one is preferred.
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 ('delete'), the target ('memory entry'), and the identifier ('by ID'). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'memory.update' or 'memory.store' by specifying deletion rather than modification or creation.
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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use to remove outdated or incorrect information.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related tasks, missing a chance for even clearer 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool checks for specific issues and returns either a structural report or a semantic payload (KB/memory data + prompt). However, it does not mention if the tool writes or modifies anything, rate limits, or required authentication. The behavioral description is adequate but lacks depth.
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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing the semantic mode. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact by omitting the redundant 'missing cross-references' mention (appears twice). Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.
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 (6 parameters, two modes, no output schema), the description covers the main modes and their outputs but lacks guidance on required parameters, error conditions, or what happens if project_id/project_root are missing. The absence of an output schema means the description should clarify return values more explicitly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 67% (4 of 6 parameters described). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each lint_mode produces and hinting that project_id/project_root are likely needed. However, the schema already describes parameters well (enum for lint_mode, defaults for max_kb_entries, etc.), so the description provides moderate added value.
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 a health-check of the wiki, listing specific issues it finds (orphan entries, broken links, stale sources, missing cross-references). It also distinguishes two modes, 'structural' and 'semantic', with clear purpose for each. This is a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates from siblings like wiki.export or health.check.
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 explains when to use each lint_mode (structural for basic checks, semantic for deeper LLM analysis) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. It provides context for the semantic mode but lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., project_id or project_root needed).
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination behavior and the return of total_count, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has performance implications. The safety profile is absent.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and pagination, followed by usage guidance and return info. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy.
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 6 parameters and no output schema. The description mentions pagination and total_count but does not explain the return format (e.g., list of entries), how offset/limit interact, or how to handle scope filtering. Adequate for simple use but incomplete for complex pagination workflows.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with all 6 parameters having descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it only mentions pagination generally and total_count, not parameter-specific details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states 'List all memory entries for a project with pagination', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling memory.search by clarifying 'not just search results', making the tool's unique role obvious.
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 tells when to use this tool ('when you need to see all memories') and explicitly contrasts it with 'just search results', referencing the sibling search tool. However, it does not mention when not to use (e.g., for a single entry use memory.get) or other context like rate limits.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool replaces fields (destructive overwrite) and requires a subsequent index regeneration. It does not mention potential side effects, permissions needed, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. Some behavioral context is provided but significant gaps remain.
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 two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose and the second gives an important procedural instruction. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Well front-loaded with the core action.
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 straightforward update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and a key follow-up action. It lacks details about return values, error cases, or whether partial updates are allowed for omitted fields. Still, it provides enough context for basic usage. A score of 4 reflects that it is nearly complete but could address a few more behavioral aspects.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%—all parameters have individual descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra value by restating that the fields are replaceable and using 'and/or' to imply partial updates. This is slightly helpful but largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states 'Update an existing KB document by ID' and specifies that it replaces title, content, and/or source. This clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (KB document by ID), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like kb.add, kb.delete, and kb.get.
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 provides a clear post-update guideline: 'After updating, regenerate the index page with kb.index.' This guides the agent on the next step. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be used versus alternatives or when not to use it. Given that no other update tools exist in the kb.* family, the context is adequate but not fully explicit.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool skips duplicates, returns a summary, and points to a follow-up workflow. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like whether existing KB entries are modified, whether the operation is reversible, or any performance/rate limits. The description adds useful context but leaves some behavioral gaps.
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 three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding important workflow guidance. Each sentence adds value—no wasted words. It is concise yet informative, though the follow-up instruction could be slightly shorter without losing meaning.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main action, skips logic, and post-usage steps. It lacks detail on return format or error handling, but the post-usage workflow compensates for some incompleteness. For a bulk-import tool of moderate complexity, this is reasonably complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how patterns work, what happens with overwrite=true, or the relationship between project_id and project_root. The schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't augment it.
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 scans a project directory for markdown and text files and bulk-imports them into the knowledge base. It also specifies skipping already-present files and returning a summary. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kb.add (single add) or kb.search (search), as it's a bulk initialization.
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 provides explicit post-usage guidance: follow the workflow in .kiro/steering/kb-ingest.md for each added file. It also clarifies the tool skips files already present, implying it should be used for initial import or re-import with overwrite. No alternative tools are named, but the context of bulk import vs. single add is clear from sibling names.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation (fetching a document), but does not mention behavior for missing IDs, authentication, rate limits, or return format. This is adequate for a simple fetch operation but lacks depth.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.
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, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its usage context. It could mention error behavior, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (both 'id' and 'project_id' have descriptions in the input schema). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Fetch a single KB document by ID', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool kb.search by explaining when to use this tool after a search.
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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use after kb.search with max_content_length to retrieve the full content of a specific document.' This provides a clear workflow and implies when not to use this tool (for searching).
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?
The description discloses the atomic replace behavior and the dual nature of the operation (read vs. write). However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden—it covers the key behavioral traits but lacks some depth.
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 three sentences, each with a clear purpose: stating the function, explaining the usage pattern, and providing strategic context. There is no redundancy or filler. The information is front-loaded effectively.
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?
Given the tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, usage, and relationship to sibling tools. It lacks details on return format and error handling, but those are partially compensated by the schema and the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described in the schema). The description adds significant value by clarifying how the optional 'content' parameter controls the operation (omit to fetch, provide to replace). For 'project_id', the description adds no additional context beyond the schema, but the overall parameter semantics are well clarified.
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 or replaces the wiki index page, specifying the source. It distinguishes itself from sibling kb.* tools by explicitly noting it is the index used as a navigation entry point, and by mentioning regeneration after kb.add/update/delete operations.
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 gives explicit usage instructions: call with no content to fetch, with content to replace. It also provides strategic guidance on when to use the tool: read before searching, regenerate after modifications. This effectively differentiates it from siblings like kb.search and kb.add/update/delete.
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 full burden. It correctly indicates the tool is a read operation (fetch), implying idempotency and non-destructiveness. Though it doesn't detail behavior on missing IDs, rate limits, or auth needs, the core behavioral trait (safe fetch) is well communicated for memory tools.
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, front-loaded with verb+resource, zero waste. Every sentence earns its place: first states the core action precisely, second provides usage context. Ideal for an AI to quickly parse.
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?
Given low complexity (1 required param, no output schema, no enums, 3 siblings in same domain), the description is sufficient. It explains why this tool exists (full content retrieval) and when to use it. Could optionally mention that it returns only one entry by ID, but the name and context make that clear. It covers the essential gap that the schema cannot.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the description adds value beyond the schema: it contextually links the tool to memory.search, explaining why you'd use this (get full content) vs search (which may truncate). The schema documents the 'id' property but the description gives it operational meaning. Could still clarify the optionality of project_id vs project_root.
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 ('Fetch a single memory entry by ID') and resource ('memory entry'), distinguishing it from siblings like memory.search (search) and memory.list (list) which are different operations. The specificity of 'by ID' and 'full content' further clarifies the purpose.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use after memory.search with max_content_length to retrieve the full content.' This provides a clear workflow context and distinguishes it from memory.search, which may not return full content. The agent can infer when not to use it (e.g., for searching or listing).
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:

[![mcp-kb-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dereknguyen269/mcp-kb-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dereknguyen269/mcp-kb-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-kb-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dereknguyen269/mcp-kb-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dereknguyen269/mcp-kb-server)

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/dereknguyen269/mcp-kb-server'

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