Mortis-RAG-MCP

by moton16

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: v0.4.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: lifecycle (init/unregister), inventory (vaults/list/stats), retrieval (search/read), rebuilding (rebuild), and policy (exempt). Even potentially similar tools like init vs rebuild and search vs read are clearly separated by registration/reindexing and chunk retrieval/full-text reading.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the kb_ prefix and snake_case, and most use a clear verb + object pattern. kb_vaults and kb_stats are noun-style rather than verb-style, and kb_exempt bundles multiple sub-operations under one verb, but the overall pattern remains predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a RAG knowledge base management server. Each tool serves a meaningful purpose without redundancy or bloat, and the count fits comfortably within the ideal range.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: registration, unregistration, listing, rebuilding, stats, search, reading, and exemptions. Since the server watches files and indexes automatically, no explicit add/update tool is required, leaving no obvious dead ends.
Average 3.8/5 across 9 of 9 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
- Last stable release on August 30, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently states that no LLM is called and implies a read-only operation, and it adds the important detail that source is a vault-relative path. It does not, however, disclose return format, failure behavior, or other side effects.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds information. The multi-vault caveat is placed where it is most useful, after the primary behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return behavior and parameter semantics more fully. It omits what the tool returns, how heading/line ranges behave, and how it relates to sibling tools, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies source path semantics and when to pass vault_path, but heading, start_line, and end_line are left entirely to inference from their names. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.
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?
Description clearly states a specific action—reading knowledge base original text—and the resource, plus the notable trait that it does not invoke an LLM. This differentiates it from likely LLM-based siblings like kb_search, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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?
Provides useful contextual guidance for multi-vault environments (recommends explicitly passing vault_path) and clarifies the meaning of source in fan-out results. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a non-destructive listing operation and the 'indexed' qualifier, but omits what the returned list contains (paths, names, metadata), whether it is recursive, and how multiple knowledge bases are handled when vault_path is omitted.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the optional parameter behavior is stated immediately after, making it easy to scan.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is borderline adequate, but it lacks return-value details and when-to-use context. An agent could invoke it correctly, but may be uncertain about the shape of the result or how to choose it over related siblings.
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 baseline is 3 even with no additional parameter explanation in the description. The description does restate that vault_path selects the knowledge base, which adds minor contextual value, but it does not go beyond what the schema already states.
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 states a specific verb ('列出' / list) and resource ('已索引的 Markdown 文件' / indexed Markdown files), making the action clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, but the listed resource is distinct enough from kb_search, kb_read, and kb_vaults to avoid obvious confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool rather than a sibling, and names no alternatives or exclusion conditions. The only usage hint is that vault_path can be passed to select a knowledge base, but this is parameter-level guidance, not tool selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does clearly indicate a read operation ('返回') and lists the exposed data: index status, failed files, last sync time, and model info. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid or multiple vault paths, error cases, or any assumptions about permissions or side effects beyond the implied read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, front-loaded with the action and output categories. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, so every word contributes.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core return content: index status, failed files, last sync time, and model info. It is concise enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. The main gap is lack of detail about edge-case behavior, such as what happens when multiple vaults are registered and vault_path is omitted.
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 only parameter, vualt_path, has 100% schema description coverage already, including its optionality and absolute-path requirement. The description adds little beyond the phrase '指定知识库' (specified knowledge base), so it does not meaningfully supplement 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 uses a specific verb ('返回' / returns) and identifies the resource (stats for a specified knowledge base). It lists meaningful output categories, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like kb_list or kb_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to use kb_stats versus kb_list, kb_search, kb_vaults, or other siblings. The only usage note, about omitting vault_path when a single vault is registered, lives in the schema rather than in the description. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.
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 given, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the fan-out behavior when vault_path is omitted and the presence of the vault field in results. It does not discuss reranking behavior, ordering, side effects, or prerequisites, but for a search operation the overall profile is reasonably inferable.
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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately gives the most important behavioral nuance, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough invocation context: it states what is returned, how scope is determined, and what field identifies the vault. Minor gaps around rerank and result ordering prevent a top score.
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 only 25%, and the description adds valuable context for vault_path by explaining the cross-vault fan-out behavior. However, it does not elaborate on query, top_k, or use_rerank; those names are self-explanatory, so this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 action: search the knowledge base and return structured raw chunks. This distinguishes kb_search from siblings like kb_list, kb_read, and kb_stats, which are not search/retrieval operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool by emphasizing search and fan-out behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The scope behavior for vault_path is useful, yet no comparison to sibling tools is provided.
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?
无任何注释，描述承担全部行为披露义务。描述披露了操作范围和机制（. vaultignore 通配符、单个文件豁免、状态检查），但未披露变更的副作用，如 exempt_file 使用 frontmatter 机制会重写源文件 YAML 头部、remove_pattern 可能让原本排除的内容重新暴露给检索，也未说明修改的持久性。对无注释的变更类工具而言，行为披露有明显缺口。
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?
两句话零废字：第一句前置核心用途，第二句紧凑列举全部操作能力，与六个 action 枚举一一对应。对于多操作工具而言，篇幅控制得当且信息密度高。
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?
该工具为六动作管理类工具，无输出 schema 也无注释，描述虽完整覆盖了操作空间和机制，但未说明各动作的返回行为（如 list/check 返回什么），也未提及前提条件（如知识库需先经 kb_init 注册、vault_path 何时可省略）。在一个动作多样、无输出结构的工具上，这些信息对代理人正确调用仍属必要。
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 描述覆盖率 100%，五个参数均有 detail 说明，描述未在 schema 基础上增加参数级语义。描述提到的 .vaultignore 与 single-file 豁免机制在 schema 的 method 参数中已有覆盖，因此维持基准 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?
描述明确给出动词（查看、添加、删除）和资源（知识库的 RAG 豁免项），并解释目的（排除不希望被检索的私密/草稿内容），与获取类兄弟工具（kb_search、kb_read）形成清晰区分。同时列举了与 action 枚举完全对应的六类操作，代理人无需打开 schema 即可理解工具职能。
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?
描述给出了明确的使用场景语境——管理检索豁免以排除私密/草稿内容，代理人可据此判断何时调用。但未显式点名替代工具或给出 when-not-to-use 的排除条件，例如未说明检索内容时应使用 kb_search 而非本工具。
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, and the description is minimal. The phrase '含存活状态与索引进度' provides context that the tool does more than a basic list, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it may trigger refresh, or what '存活状态' checking implies.
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, compact sentence that fully expresses the tool's purpose and the distinguishing output fields. No wasted words or 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?
For a zero-parameter read-like listing tool, the description covers essential purpose but lacks explicit behavioral context like read-only guarantee, possible exclusions, or sibling differentiation. Given no annotations, a short note about read-only status and relationship to kb_list would make it complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema has nothing to add. The description correctly indicates the tool's scope of output without needing parameter documentation.
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 a specific verb ('列出所有已注册的知识库') with a clear resource and additional detail about what information is included ('存活状态与索引进度'). This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like kb_list, which would otherwise be a potential competitor.
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 makes it obvious this is a listing/enumeration tool, and the tool name 'kb_vaults' contrasts with siblings like kb_search and kb_read. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over kb_list or whether it is the canonical list 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the two key side effects: stopping file watching and removing the entry from the registry, and explicitly reassures that the folder itself is not affected. It does not mention the conditional cache deletion behavior or any permission/reversibility aspects, but the main consequences are clearly disclosed.
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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action ('注销一个已注册的知识库') before a colon-separated clarification of the effects. Every clause earns its place; there is no padding or repetition of schema content.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is reasonably complete: it identifies the target state (registered), describes the operation's effects and its non-destructive nature, and the schema fully documents both parameters. It does not cover error cases or success/output behavior, but for a simple unregister operation this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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%: the 'path' parameter is described as the required absolute path, and 'purge_cache' is described as a boolean for deleting the disk index cache. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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 a specific verb and resource: '注销一个已注册的知识库' (unregister a registered knowledge base), and immediately clarifies the scope with '停止文件监听并从注册表移除' (stop file watching and remove from registry). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as kb_init (registration) and kb_search/kb_read (access operations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for already-registered knowledge bases ('已注册的') and notes that the folder itself is unaffected ('不影响文件夹本身'), which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, such as 'use kb_init to re-register' or 'use kb_exempt if you only want to pause monitoring'. This is implied usage rather than explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals that the tool validates the directory, writes to a user-level registry that survives restarts, builds an index in the background, and starts file monitoring. These are meaningful side effects beyond a mere 'initializes'. It omits edge-case behavior such as idempotency (what happens if the folder is already registered) and error handling for invalid paths, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
A single compact, front-loaded sentence packs in the core action, the four-step behavioral outline, the persistence note, and a clear usage condition. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision-making facts: what it does, what side effects it triggers, persistence across restarts, asynchronous behavior, and when to invoke it. The notable gaps are the return value/confirmation format and behavior on duplicate registration, but given the moderate complexity this is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. Both parameters (name, path) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only minor value by implying that the path must be a valid directory (校验目录) and confirming that name is optional and defaults to the folder name. It does not materially enrich parameter 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?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pairing — 注册（初始化）一个文件夹为知识库 (register/initialize a folder as a knowledge base) — and enumerates concrete steps: validate directory, write registry, build index, start file monitoring. It distinguishes itself from the sibling set (kb_unregister, kb_list, kb_search, etc.), none of which perform initialization, and the closing clause positions it as the setup tool.
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 states when to call it: 首次使用或要纳入新文件夹时调用 (call on first use or when adding a new folder). This is clear context for an agent. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions — e.g., it never says to use kb_unregister for removal or kb_rebuild for re-indexing — so it falls short of a 5.
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 the full burden. It discloses the destructive/heavy nature of the operation ('删除磁盘缓存' and '强制全量重建索引'), warning the agent that this is not a lightweight read. It omits details like permissions or time cost, but the core behavioral profile is clear.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, and the usage condition is isolated in a parenthetical. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-optional-param maintenance tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and its trigger conditions. It doesn't describe return values or failure modes, but these are less critical for a destructive rebuild action where the effect is the point.
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% and the vault_path property is fully documented in the schema (optional, absolute path, condition for omission). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action — deleting the knowledge base's disk cache and forcing a full index rebuild — with a clear resource ('指定知识库') and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like kb_init (initialization) and kb_search/kb_read (query 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 parenthetical '(首次建库或内容大改后用)' explicitly states when to invoke the tool: after initial database creation or major content changes. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
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:

[![Mortis-RAG-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/moton16/Mortis-RAG-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/moton16/Mortis-RAG-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Mortis-RAG-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/moton16/Mortis-RAG-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/moton16/Mortis-RAG-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/moton16/Mortis-RAG-MCP'

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