hive

by mlorentedev

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v4.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have a distinct role, but several retrieval paths overlap: vault_query, vault_search, vault_ask, and delegate_task can all be used to read or summarize vault content, and vault_search's lessons-only mode overlaps capture_lesson's lookup mode. vault_write/replace and vault_patch also offer close update paths, so the boundaries are clear only with careful reading.
Naming Consistency4/5
The vault_* tools form a clear, consistent namespace and all names are readable snake_case. The set is not perfectly uniform, though: session_briefing and worker_status use domain-plus-noun, while capture_lesson and delegate_task use verb-first names, so the naming convention is cohesive but mixed.
Tool Count5/5
Thirteen tools is a well-scoped size for this domain: content CRUD, search, git commits, health, session context, lesson capture, and worker visibility are all represented without obvious bloat. Each tool appears to earn its place.
Completeness4/5
The vault surface covers create, read, update, patch, delete, commit, search, health, session startup, lessons, and worker status, which is strong for the stated domain. Minor gaps remain for direct lesson edit/delete operations and file renames/moves, but those can be worked around with the existing vault write/delete tools.
Average 4.4/5 across 12 of 13 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 107 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 23, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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.
View related servers

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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'destructive; recoverable via git', but the annotations include destructiveHint: false. This is a direct contradiction. The description does provide rich behavioral context (commit default, idempotency, error conditions), but the contradiction triggers the score 1 rule.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes essential caveats (files only, recoverable via git, idempotency behavior) without wasting words. Every sentence contributes value.
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 edge cases (error on non-existent path, idempotency, commit behavior) and references git recovery. With the output schema and rich parameter descriptions, it is nearly complete. It loses a point for not providing usage alternatives or addressing the destructive annotation inconsistency.
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 documents all parameters. The description adds general context (e.g., error behavior for non-existent paths) but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a single file from the vault'. It clearly states that it removes one file, commits the deletion, and explicitly excludes directories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_write and vault_patch.
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 (delete files, not directories; use commit=True) and contrasts with vault_write for commit behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any alternative for directory deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's 'Read content' aligns. No additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, which is acceptable for a safe read operation.
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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Could be slightly expanded for completeness but is efficient and clear.
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, annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't mention return format or error handling, but for a straightforward read tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 each parameter's meaning. The description text does not add extra parameter context, but the 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 'Read content from a vault project', specifying a verb (read) and resource (vault project). It also distinguishes from file system access and implicitly from siblings like vault_write and vault_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?
Explicitly says 'use instead of direct filesystem access', providing context for when to use. Does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to vault_list/search, but the sibling names and purpose make alternatives clear.
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 annotations provide no safety disclosure, but the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond them: the 50-line threshold, automatic worker delegation, and fallback behavior. It also clarifies the tool mutates nothing structurally while it performs offloading, though it doesn't fully explain side effects or costs.
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 entire description is two sentences that front-load the key action and immediately provide the most important behavioral caveat. No word is wasted, and the format is easy to grasp.
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 the main usage modes, file-size behavior, and fallback. With an output schema and full parameter descriptions present, this is sufficient for basic invocation, but it does not explain the generic no-project delegation mode clearly, so it is not a 5.
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 tool description does not need to document parameters. The main description only associates project with vault reading, but availing of the expected baseline: since the schema already covers 10 parameters, the description adds little beyond that.
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 opening line 'Offload work to a cheaper model or summarize vault files' names a clear verb and resource, so an agent can understand the tool's purpose immediately. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like vault_ask or worker_status, so it's not quite a 5.
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 gives concrete execution context: it states that when project is provided a vault file is read, files ≤50 lines are returned directly, larger files are delegated to a worker, and there is a fallback if workers are unavailable. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so it stops short of 5.
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?
Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description explains that reachability is actively probed rather than inferred, and that configuration is reported separately from availability. It also notes removed dollar figures and the reasoning behind them, giving the agent crucial 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The opening sentence is succinct and front-loaded, but the rest is a long narrative about HIVE-384, the old output, and design rationale. Most of that detail is not necessary for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly, so the description is wordier than needed.
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?
The description is behaviorally rich and, together with the output schema and annotations, gives the agent a complete picture. It explains what the tool measures, what is intentionally excluded, and how reachability is resolved, leaving no critical gap for invocation.
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 include_models parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond mentioning 'model' as one health dimension, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 opens with 'Show worker health: configuration, reachability, model, and usage,' which is a specific verb plus resource and outcome. It clearly distinguishes the tool's focus from the vault_* siblings by naming its unique scope of worker health.
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 conveys when to use the tool—when worker health/status is needed—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives. The context is clear enough for a watchful agent, but the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that without proper setup, it returns a helpful how-to-enable message and never errors, which is consistent and 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 informative but slightly wordy. It is well-structured with optional setup details, but could be more succinct.
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 an output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context about behavior when not configured. It covers key aspects for a RAG 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?
Only one parameter 'question' with full schema coverage. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: answering natural-language questions via semantic retrieval or returning relevant sections. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool vault_search, which handles keyword/regex lookups.
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 (natural-language questions) and when not (use vault_search for keyword/regex). Also notes it is optional and requires specific configuration to work, preventing misuse.
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?
Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it stages everything, creates one commit, returns commit SHA, clean-tree notice, or error, and mentions default commit message. Annotations confirm it's not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent, which aligns with the described 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and return values. 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.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers return values (commit SHA, clean-tree notice, error), batch usage context, and default message, providing complete guidance.
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% for the single parameter 'message', and the description adds extra meaning: empty defaults to 'vault: batch update' and notes it's the only parameter with no project argument, enhancing understanding 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 'Stage everything in the vault and create one commit' and explains its relationship to vault_write and vault_patch, distinguishing it from sibling tools by specifying it's a batch commit operation.
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 says this is a companion to vault_write and vault_patch with commit=False, providing when-to-use context. It also notes there is no project argument, clarifying scope. Missing explicit 'when not to use', but the context is sufficient.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral details: always emits server identity block, conditional outputs based on parameters. No contradictions.
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 well-structured with clear bullet points. It is informative without being overly verbose, though could be slightly more 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 the tool has 6 optional parameters and conditional behavior, the description covers main use cases. Output format is partially described (blocks), but output schema exists to fill gaps. Adequate for the complexity.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining what checks trigger drift detection and what include_usage/runtime append, enhancing semantic understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns vault health metrics, validation, and optional usage analytics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vault_list or vault_search by focusing on health checks and diagnostics.
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 explains conditional usage: without parameters returns summary, with checks runs drift detection, and with flags appends analytics or runtime metadata. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds details on how arguments affect behavior (listing projects vs files, using subdirectories and patterns). It does not contradict annotations and provides good behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
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 very concise at 4 lines, front-loads the main purpose, and includes only essential details with no redundant content. Every sentence provides useful 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?
Given the complexity (4 optional params, nested structure), the description covers the main usage patterns. It explains the two modes and parameter roles. The output schema exists to document return values, so the description is sufficiently complete for a list tool.
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%, but the description adds significant value: explains the alias 'subpath' for 'path', notes that 'scope' is not a parameter here, and clarifies default behaviors for empty strings. This is excellent parameter-level guidance.
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 vault projects or files within a project. It distinguishes two modes based on arguments, and the verb 'list' combined with resource 'vault projects/files' is specific. It differentiates from sibling tools like vault_search and vault_write.
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 explains when to use with or without the 'project' argument. It does not directly compare with sibling tools, but the usage context is clear and provides actionable guidance.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral details about modes, aliases (regex, limit), and cap interactions without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (4 lines) yet comprehensive, using clear bullet-like phrasing to convey modes and key behaviors without extraneous text.
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?
The description covers all modes, parameter interactions, and aliases. With an output schema present, return values need not be described. Sufficient for a complex 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 coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining aliases (regex vs use_regex, limit vs max_results) and mode-specific parameter effects.
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 searches vault files with multiple modes (full-text, ranked, recent), distinguishing it from sibling tools like vault_query or vault_list.
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 explains when to use each mode (default, ranked, recent, rank_by) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives 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 annotations indicating a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, the description adds behavior: auto-generated frontmatter, doc_type defaulting to 'note', and automatic mode inference. It does not mention deferred commit, but that is disclosed in the schema, and the description's extra mode semantics exceed what annotations alone provide.
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?
Four short lines, bulleted modes, no filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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 an 8-param tool with rich schema and output schema, the description provides the necessary high-level behavioral map: modes, requirements, and default inference. It is complete enough for selection and correct invocation.
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%, so the baseline is 3. Description adds cross-parameter semantics: which modes require which params, that operation can be omitted when path has no section, and doc_type defaulting. This goes beyond individual schema entries.
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 opens with 'Write to the vault' and lists three concrete modes: append, replace, and create a new file. This clearly identifies the resource and operation and distinguishes it from vault_list/vault_query/vault_search siblings.
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?
Modes explicitly state requirements: append/replace requires a section, create requires a path, and operation is inferred when path is passed without section. It gives clear within-tool mode-selection context, though it does not name sibling alternatives or exclusions.
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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behavior: auto git commit, 3-pass cascading match, uniqueness requirement, and atomic failure semantics ('If any patch fails validation, no changes are written'). It also references the durability contract in vault_write, providing valuable 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 compact and front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a short bulleted list of usage rules and matching behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and technical details are grouped logically.
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?
With 9 parameters, rich schema descriptions, an output schema, and annotations, the description still contributes the essential behavioral contract: validation atomicity, matching cascades, and commit durability. The reference to the vault_write docstring for the durability contract avoids duplication while pointing to the needed detail.
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?
The input schema already has 100% descriptive coverage, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by clarifying the two mutually exclusive modes (find/replace vs patches), the 'applied in sequence' semantics, and the uniqueness rule that governs patch validation. It does not need to repeat every schema field, but it explains the relationships between 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?
Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Surgical find-and-replace in a vault file with auto git commit,' clearly distinguishing it from siblings like vault_write, vault_delete, and vault_commit. It further specifies single/multi modes and matching algorithm, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 gives concrete conditions for use: single vs multi replacement, 'Do not mix both modes,' the requirement that each find appear exactly once, and all-or-nothing validation. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives with 'use X instead,' but the context makes it obvious this is the targeted-edit tool.
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?
Description goes beyond annotations by detailing the behavior of each mode, such as batch extraction via a worker and lookup ranking. Annotations already indicate not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and description aligns without contradiction.
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 structured into clear paragraphs for each mode, uses concise language, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds information without waste.
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?
Given the complexity of three modes and 11 parameters, the description is fully complete. It covers all necessary aspects for correct usage, including mode selection, parameter roles, and default values. The presence of an output schema does not detract from the description's completeness.
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 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by grouping parameters into modes, explaining conditional usage (e.g., rank_by ignored unless find is set), and providing context for each parameter. This exceeds the baseline of 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?
The description clearly defines the tool's purpose as capturing lessons with three distinct modes (inline, batch, lookup). It differentiates from sibling tools which include vault operations and delegation tasks.
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 explains when to use each mode: inline for structured input, batch for extracting from raw text, lookup for searching existing lessons. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but is sufficient for most cases.
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?
Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description details what the tool assembles (active tasks, recent lessons, git activity, project health) and how it provides discoverability parity with other tools. No contradictions with annotations; adds valuable 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?
Two concise paragraphs: first sentence states primary use, second paragraph explains dual behavior (with/without project). Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the critical info is front-loaded.
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?
Given low complexity (1 param, no required, output schema exists), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns in both cases, and how it fits with sibling tools. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.
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 a clear description for the 'project' parameter. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying the slug is a directory under 10_projects/, that empty lists projects, and explicitly stating there is no 'days' argument – fixed briefing window. This reduces ambiguity 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 loads project context at session start. It distinguishes from siblings by being a consolidated briefing that replaces multiple manual calls, and notes behavior without a project (returns project list) for discoverability parity with vault_health and worker_status.
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 says 'Call at the start of every new session' and explains what happens with and without a project. It also contrasts with alternatives by stating it replaces 3-4 manual calls, giving clear usage context.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/mlorentedev/hive'

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