maic-server-fs-mcp

by maicFir

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.5
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: indexing, task dispatch, command execution, directory listing, file reading, semantic search, and file writing. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent camelCase verb_noun pattern (e.g., readFile, searchCodebase, writeFile). No mixed conventions or irregularities.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server covers its core file system and codebase functionality without being too sparse or bloated. The count feels well-scoped for its purpose.
Completeness3/5
While the tools cover reading, writing, and searching, they lack file deletion, renaming, and directory creation, which are common file system operations. The inclusion of dispatchTask seems out of place for an FS server.
Average 3.8/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 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 ISC License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the basic operation without disclosing error handling, permissions, or encoding assumptions.
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?
Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. Could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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 read tool, but lacks details on output format, encoding, or potential errors. No output schema 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description and example; the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads file content from a local path, and is distinct from sibling tools like writeFile (write) and readDirectory (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?
Implied usage for viewing file content, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like readDirectory or searchCodebase.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions scanning specific file types and calling an external API, but does not state whether the previous index is overwritten, the time/network cost, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that has destructive potential (rebuilding index).
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 concise sentences. First sentence states purpose and scope. Second sentence provides essential usage guidance. No redundant 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?
Covers when to invoke but lacks details on what happens after invocation (e.g., progress indication, result, error handling). No output schema, so description should explain expected outcome or side effects. It is adequate but not complete for a complex indexing 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 schema already documents the single parameter dirPath with default and description. The tool description adds no further 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?
Description clearly states it scans local JS/TS/JSX/TSX files and builds/rebuilds a vector index using Gemini Embedding API. It distinguishes itself from sibling searchCodebase by noting it must be called before first use of searchCodebase or after major code changes.
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 specifies when to use: after major code changes or before first use of searchCodebase. Does not provide alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear that this is the only index-building tool among 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 full responsibility. It mentions 'safely run' but gives no details on safety mechanisms, restrictions, side effects, or output behavior (stdout/stderr). 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 two efficient sentences: the first defines the tool's action with examples, the second provides usage context. No superfluous information.
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 moderate complexity with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and usage but omits crucial details: return output (stdout/stderr with exit code), execution environment (project root directory), and blocking nature. These gaps reduce 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?
Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds example commands (npm test, git status, npm run build) which help ground the usage, but does not add additional semantic depth beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs shell commands safely on the local terminal, gives concrete examples (npm test, git status, npm run build), and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle file operations, search, or task dispatch.
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 specifies when to use the tool: after code modifications to verify errors, install dependencies, or run builds. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the provided contexts cover common use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it dispatches one task and waits for results, but lacks details on side effects, failure handling, or auth requirements.
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 and usage guideline. The description is front-loaded and contains no filler.
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 covers the main workflow but lacks information on return values or what happens after dispatch, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema.
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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds global workflow context but no additional parameter-specific meaning 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 the tool's purpose: dispatching a task to a subordinate expert. It distinguishes from siblings like buildCodebaseIndex or writeFile by focusing on delegation.
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 explicit usage context: only one task at a time and wait for results. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct.
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 describes a read-only search operation but does not disclose potential behaviors like indexing prerequisites, resource cost, or limitations on search scope beyond 'local codebase'. Basic transparency is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise with no extraneous information, earning every word.
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, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers when and what to use, and parameter semantics are clear. Lack of output format details is minor for a search 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds contextual examples (e.g., 'JWT 鉴权拦截器') for query and explains topK's purpose, but the value over schema is marginal. The description does not compensate for any missing schema details.
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 specifies the verb (semantic search), resource (local codebase), and provides a clear use case (when location of code is unknown). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like readFile (specific file) and executeCommand (commands).
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 states when to use ('when you don't know where'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternative sibling tools like buildCodebaseIndex for indexing.
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?
Without annotations, description carries full burden. It mentions write/overwrite but does not disclose side effects like overwrite behavior without confirmation, permissions, or what happens if file doesn't exist (creates?). Adequate but not thorough.
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 in Chinese, front-loaded with core purpose. No redundant information. Extremely concise.
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 2 simple parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose and usage context. Could mention overwrite behavior explicitly, but overall sufficient for a basic file write 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds use-case context but no new parameter-level meaning beyond 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?
Description clearly states the tool writes/overwrites file content at a specified path, used for code generation/modification. It distinguishes from siblings like readFile (read-only) and readDirectory (listing). Verb and resource are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for writing/modifying code, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. However, based on sibling tools, the context is clear enough for selection.
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?
Discloses automatic ignoring of 'node_modules 等大文件夹', a behavioral trait not in annotations. No annotations are provided, so the description adds value by mentioning this filter. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though implied by '列出').
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 one paragraph with front-loaded main action. It is concise but could be slightly more structured; 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?
Lacks output format details (e.g., whether paths or just names, recursion depth). While it covers when to use and auto-ignoring behavior, the missing return information leaves ambiguity for the agent.
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 already describes the filePath parameter including supported paths and default. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all file and folder names in a directory, with a specific verb '列出'. It distinguishes from siblings like readFile (reads single file) and searchCodebase (searches) by positioning itself as a prerequisite for understanding project structure.
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: '当你不确定项目结构、找不到某个文件在哪里时' and states '必须先调用此工具', establishing clear usage context and positioning it as a first step.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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