Skip to main content
Glama
fjacquet

vault-rag-mcp

by fjacquet
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving a specific note by path, searching the glossary, and performing semantic search across the vault. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: 'get_note', 'search_glossary', 'search_vault'. No deviations.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 3 tools, the set is on the lower end but appropriate for a read-only RAG server. It covers the essential retrieval operations without being too sparse.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers all core retrieval needs (exact note lookup, glossary search, semantic vault search). Minor gaps exist, such as listing available folders or note types, but filters in search_vault mitigate this.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 11 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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 carries full burden. It mentions the resource location and bilingual functionality but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or access requirements. A search tool is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

    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, front-loading the purpose in one sentence, then briefly documenting parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

    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's simplicity (2 params, output schema present), the description provides essential context: purpose, resource location, language support, and parameters. It could mention return type or read-only nature, but is largely complete for a search tool.

    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 0%, requiring the description to add meaning. It effectively explains both parameters: 'query' as a term/concept in French/English, and 'limit' as max results with default 5. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

    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 a glossary with 1878 term definitions, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_vault, but the context implies a focused glossary search, making it 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 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 (e.g., search_vault) or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, leaving usage decisions to the agent without explicit context.

    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 provided, so description carries full burden. It states retrieval of content, implying read-only. Missing details on error behavior if file doesn't exist, but for a simple read operation, this is acceptable.

    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: first states purpose, second explains the single parameter. No filler, front-loaded with the main 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?

    With an output schema present, return values are covered. The description addresses the core functionality and parameter. Minor omission is handling of invalid paths, but overall complete for the tool's simplicity.

    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 0%, but description explains file_path as 'Path relative to vault root' with an example, adding meaning beyond the bare type declaration.

    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 retrieves full content of a specific note by file path. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_glossary and search_vault by focusing on retrieval of a known note.

    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?

    Usage context is implied: use when you have a file path. No explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling tools are different enough that the purpose alone suggests appropriate usage.

    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 provided, so description carries full burden. Describes semantic search and language support (French/English) but does not disclose read-only nature, auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior. Adequate but could be more 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?

    First sentence clearly states purpose, followed by bullet-point parameter details. No redundancy, though the examples in parameter descriptions add length. Efficient overall.

    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?

    Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description explains all four parameters and their filtering roles. Lacks mention of edge cases or errors, but is sufficient for a search tool with moderate complexity.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds critical meaning: explains 'query' as natural language, 'limit' includes default, 'para_folder' lists possible values, 'note_type' gives examples. This goes far beyond the schema titles 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?

    Description clearly states the action ('Search the vault semantically') and outcome ('Returns the most relevant notes'). It distinguishes from siblings 'get_note' and 'search_glossary' by specifying semantic search over the vault vs. specific note retrieval or glossary search.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Implies usage for natural language queries, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

    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

vault-rag-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

vault-rag-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fjacquet/vault-rag-mcp'

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