lithtrix-mcp

Official

by lithtrix

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose, with clear domain prefixes and specific verbs. No two tools overlap in functionality; even similar operations like blob_download and blob_signed_url serve different use cases.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the pattern lithtrix_<domain>_<action>, with consistent snake_case. Verbs are specific and descriptive, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 18 tools covering blob storage, memory, browsing, search, feedback, and registration, the count is well-scoped for the platform's capabilities. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
Core operations for each domain are present (CRUD for blobs and memory, plus search and browse), but missing some lifecycle operations like blob update and memory delete. This is a minor gap given the server's primary focus on storage and retrieval.
Average 3.9/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the HTTP method and required API key, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe side effects. It 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence with the core action and a separate sentence for a prerequisite. No filler, 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?
No output schema exists, and the description does not explain the return format or metadata fields. For a list operation, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameters. The description simply restates they are optional, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists blob metadata with optional pagination. It uses the verb 'list' and specifies the endpoint, making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'lithtrix_blob_search' or 'lithtrix_blob_meta'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search, meta). The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'soft-delete' and requires an API key, but does not explain the implications of soft-delete (e.g., reversibility, side effects, or what happens to the blob). With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, and it falls short.
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, no fluff, front-loaded with the action and immediate requirement.
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?
Adequate for a simple delete tool with one parameter, but lacks details on soft-delete behavior and response format. With no output schema, the description could be more informative.
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% and the schema's description is already clear; the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Soft-delete a blob' with the HTTP method and path, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling blob tools like download, list, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; it does not mention when a soft-delete is appropriate or any prerequisites beyond the API key.
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 must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions auth requirement but does not explain error behavior (e.g., if key missing), idempotency (GET is safe), or result format. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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-loaded with the primary action and resource. It is efficient with no redundancy, though the endpoint path could be considered unnecessary detail.
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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description should at least hint at the return value or error handling. It only covers purpose and auth, leaving the agent guessing about what happens on success/failure.
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 a detailed description of the 'key' parameter (length, pattern). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema covers. With 100% schema coverage, 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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'stored memory by key', and includes the HTTP method for clarity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lithtrix_memory_set' (create/update) and 'lithtrix_memory_search' (search without key).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a specific key, but does not explicitly state when to avoid or what alternatives exist (e.g., use search if no key). The sibling tool names provide some context but no explicit guidance.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the endpoint, authentication requirement, and async option but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether parsing modifies state), rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description is too minimal for a zero-annotation scenario.
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?
Single sentence efficiently packs endpoint, purpose, async usage, callback note, and auth requirement. No redundant words, front-loaded with the essential action.
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?
No output schema and no description of return format or behavior. The tool likely returns parsed data or a reference for polling, but the description does not explain the workflow. Given the existence of lithtrix_blob_parse_status, the description should clarify the relationship, which it does not.
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 detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds that async=true is for QStash, which slightly supplements the schema's 'async parse + poll'. However, for callback_url, the description just repeats the schema info. 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 the tool extracts text/tables from a blob, with options for async parsing via QStash and callback. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lithtrix_blob_parse_status and lithtrix_blob_download.
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?
Description gives clear context: async=true for QStash, optional callback. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like lithtrix_blob_search or lithtrix_blob_parse_status, though the purpose is clear enough.
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 fails to disclose important behavioral aspects such as retry logic, expected status codes, rate limits, or what happens if the parse is still running. While 'GET' indicates read-only, details are lacking.
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 with a single sentence containing the endpoint and a requirement. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple polling tool, the description provides the core functionality but omits details about response format, polling interval hints, and error scenarios. Given no output schema, more guidance would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameters are already documented. The description does not add new meaning or context beyond the schema, maintaining baseline adequacy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a GET endpoint to poll parse status, specifying the exact verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling lithtrix_blob_parse which likely initiates parsing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for polling after initiating a parse (in contrast to lithtrix_blob_parse). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond requiring an API key.
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 partially bears the burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with content_base64 and content_type) and auth requirement, but does not mention safety (read-only), error handling, or rate limits.
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 with two sentences. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no unnecessary 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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, endpoint, return format, and auth. It could mention error scenarios but is adequate.
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 a description for blob_id ('Content-addressed blob id (b_ + 16 hex chars)'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema offers.
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 'Download blob bytes' and provides the HTTP endpoint and return format. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like lithtrix_blob_upload and lithtrix_blob_delete.
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 mentions 'Requires LITHTRIX_API_KEY' as a prerequisite but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lithtrix_blob_signed_url or other blob operations.
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?
Discloses GET method (implying read-only) and API key requirement, but lacks details on response format, error handling, or limitations beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no unnecessary words; front-loaded with action and endpoint.
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?
Adequate for a simple read-only tool with one parameter; could mention existence requirement or error cases, but not critical.
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 covers 100% of parameter description; the tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool gets JSON metadata for a single blob, includes the HTTP endpoint, and differentiates from siblings like download/list.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; usage is implied by the purpose.
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 robots.txt enforcement, API key requirement, and return fields. However, it does not detail error handling, rate limits, or failure modes, leaving gaps for a tool that involves web fetching.
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 three sentences but the first sentence ('Pay to be fully autonomous') is vague and not immediately clear. The structure could be improved by placing the endpoint and purpose first. Overall, it is concise but not optimally front-loaded.
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 parameters, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, endpoint, parameters, returns, authentication, and robots.txt behavior. It is reasonably complete for an agent to understand usage.
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%, so the description adds minimal value over the schema. It repeats the endpoint and mode options but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the property descriptions already give.
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 provides server-side public web access for agents, specifying the endpoint POST /v1/browse and parameters. It is distinct from all sibling tools (blob, memory, search, etc.), so the purpose is 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?
While no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, the sibling set is diverse, making the browse tool's context clear. The description mentions a prerequisite (API key) and a pricing model, but lacks guidance on 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?
The description discloses the API key requirement and quota sharing, which are important behavioral traits not covered by annotations (none exist). However, it omits details about response format, error handling, and idempotency, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation safety net.
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 endpoint and core purpose, and every sentence adds value (endpoint, purpose, quota sharing, auth requirement). No excess wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers endpoint, purpose, auth, and quota context. However, given no output schema, it would benefit from briefly indicating the return structure (e.g., 'returns matching chunks with scores'). As is, it is slightly incomplete.
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 complete descriptions for all three parameters (q, limit, threshold) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs 'semantic search over parsed chunks' and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it 'shares quota with web search'. The verb and resource are 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 provides context (searches blob chunks, shares quota with web search) that implies when to use this tool versus the web-based lithtrix_search, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses time-limited access and authentication requirement (LITHTRIX_API_KEY), but omits details like whether the URL is revocable, whether it counts towards rate limits, or if it leaves any trace.
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 the core action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds 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?
No output schema, and description does not mention the return value (a signed URL string). For a tool that outputs a URL, this is a significant gap. It also lacks guidance on error cases or URL format.
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 has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions. Description adds context like 'time-limited' and 'Omit for API default' for expires_in, enhancing understanding beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Mint' and identifies the resource 'time-limited HTTPS read URL for a blob'. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint, clearly differentiating from siblings like lithtrix_blob_download and lithtrix_blob_meta.
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?
Explicitly states that anyone with the URL can GET bytes until expiry and advises caution, implying the tool is for temporary sharing. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools.
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 mentions the ranking criteria and required API key, but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or side effects. Partial disclosure.
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 precisely cover purpose, ranking, and auth. No unnecessary words, 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?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description provides key context (ranking, auth) and parameter usage. Minor gap: no mention of return format or pagination behavior, but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool with few parameters.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the ranking logic (importance then recency) and the API key requirement, which are not in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: reload top memories for session start, ranked by importance then recency. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling memory tools like get, search, and set.
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 at session start for initial context, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. No exclusions or alternative tools 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, the description mentions it returns ranked results with similarity scores and requires configuration, but lacks details on read-only nature, rate limits, or error cases.
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 efficiently convey purpose, HTTP method, prerequisites, and return type, with no unnecessary 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?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the core function and prerequisites, though it could detail the return structure more.
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%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Semantic search over your memories' with the HTTP method, distinguishing it from other memory tools like lithtrix_memory_get and lithtrix_memory_set.
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?
It specifies prerequisites (API key and server-side configuration) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like lithtrix_search for broader search or lithtrix_memory_get for exact retrieval.
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?
Given no annotations, the description provides good behavioral disclosure: explains the structured output fields (title, URL, snippet, source domain, credibility_score), the scoring scheme (0–1 based on source authority), and the API key requirement. It does not cover rate limits or error handling, but the key behaviors are transparent.
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 concise sentences, each adding unique value. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then details output structure and prerequisites. No redundant or irrelevant information.
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 search tool with no annotations or output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, input, output format, and authentication. It lacks information on error responses or result count limits beyond schema max, but covers core usage well.
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?
Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (q: query, num_results: result count). However, the description adds no additional semantic detail about parameters beyond the schema, such as how to format queries or handle special characters. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.
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 tool searches the web via Lithtrix and returns credibility-scored results. It specifies the action (search), resource (web), and unique output feature (credibility scores), distinguishing it from sibling tools like lithtrix_browse (page browsing) and lithtrix_blob_search (blob content).
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?
Description implies usage for web searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lithtrix_blob_search or lithtrix_browse. It mentions a prerequisite (API key) but lacks context about scenarios where this tool is preferred.
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 the full burden. It discloses that this is an upload operation that decodes base64, requires API key, and is subject to size limits. However, it lacks detail about the response format, side effects (e.g., whether it creates or overwrites), and error conditions. This is a moderate disclosure.
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 adding distinct value: purpose, decoding explanation, alternative for large files and requirements. No fluff, front-loaded with key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description omits return value info (e.g., blob ID or URL). It covers main points but leaves a gap in what the agent can expect as a response. The mention of limits is useful. Somewhat complete but could be improved.
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?
Input schema has 3 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by explaining base64 decoding and mentioning the raw body + Content-Type, which relates to the content_type parameter. It also references storage limits, though not explicitly tied to parameters. This supplements the schema well.
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: 'Upload binary bytes via PUT /v1/blobs', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like lithtrix_blob_delete, lithtrix_blob_download, etc., which are 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance: 'For large files prefer direct HTTP multipart/raw PUT', hinting at an alternative approach for efficiency. It also mentions requirements like API key and subject to limits. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (none are upload-focused) or state when not to use this tool.
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, the description carries full burden. It discloses the API key requirement, HTTP method (PUT), and optional parameters. It implies upsert semantics ('store or update'). However, it does not state idempotency or response details, which are acceptable for a simple set operation.
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 action and resource. No unnecessary words. Efficient and direct.
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 description lacks mention of return values or expected response (no output schema). While the tool is simple, the agent is left uninformed about what happens after setting. Adequate but with a clear gap.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description lists optional parameters (ttl, importance, source, confidence) but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's already good descriptions. No value is added over the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('store or update') and resource ('memory key'), with HTTP method and endpoint. This differentiates it from sibling read/search tools like lithtrix_memory_get and lithtrix_memory_search.
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 clear context for when to use (store/update memory) and states a prerequisite (API key). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, though the sibling tools imply read/search roles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses requirements (API key), cost (no credits, rate limits apply), and the nature of the resource (opt-in shared public memory). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, though that is implied. Still, it is fairly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences: one stating the main purpose and two directing to alternatives. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the key action.
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 is a simple paginated list with no output schema. The description explains how to paginate but does not describe the return value structure (e.g., what fields are in each entry). For a list tool, mentioning the return format would improve completeness, but the description gives enough context for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (page and per_page), with types, constraints, and descriptions. The description adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so 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 states the tool lists opt-in shared public memory from Lithtrix Commons, specifying the HTTP method and path. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like lithtrix_search and lithtrix_memory_* by focusing on public memory, and references alternative endpoints for related info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (list public memory), what it requires (API key), and where to go for other commons info (capabilities for URLs, community for stats). It also mentions credit and rate limit behavior, providing clear usage boundaries.
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, the description carries full burden. It discloses that notes are stored for routing, advises against secrets/PII, and mentions the required API key. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is idempotent or what side effects occur (e.g., overwriting previous feedback).
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-loading the core action and then adding essential context. Every phrase serves a purpose, with no redundancy or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter details, authentication, and safety constraints. It is complete for an 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%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains where to get the ref_id (from _lithtrix.search_id), provides concrete examples for ref_type, and clarifies constraints on note (max 500, no secrets). This helps an agent correctly construct parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: sending helpful/unhelpful/wrong signals using a ref_type and ref_id from specific sources like lithtrix_search response. It specifically mentions the verb 'send' and resource 'feedback signal', and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle blobs, memory, etc.
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 usage context: 'After lithtrix_search' and that the same tool works for other ref_types. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully compensates: it discloses that the API key is shown only once and must be stored immediately, that no authentication is required, and details pricing, credit expiry, referral credits, and the Gentle-Agent Agreement. All behavioral traits are 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?
Description is a single paragraph but covers all necessary details. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could benefit from structuring (e.g., separate pricing info), but still concise enough for the information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description explains the one-time nature of the api_key output and pricing details. It covers all parameters and provides context on referral, terms, and constraints. For a registration tool, it is fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, yet the description adds significant meaning: explains the one-time key output, pricing context for credits, referral agent UUID semantics, and constraints on agent_name and owner_identifier beyond regex and lengths. Greatly enhances parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Register a new agent with Lithtrix and receive a one-time API key.' It specifies the action (register) and resource (new agent). No sibling tool duplicates this purpose, so it is well-differentiated.
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?
Description explicitly says 'Call this tool once to obtain your LITHTRIX_API_KEY,' indicating one-time use. It provides context on credits, referral, and terms without explicitly stating when not to use it, but usage context is clear.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lithtrix/lithtrix-mcp'

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