vault-mcp

by oliverxuzy-ai

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: v0.3.12
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool has a clear primary purpose (capture, promote, read, analyze, topic, reflect, init). Minor overlap exists between vault_analyze's orphans and vault_reflect's blindspots, both surfacing isolated or under-connected content, but their intended use cases differ (graph analysis vs. reflective synthesis).
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent 'vault_verb' pattern (vault_capture, vault_promote, vault_read, vault_analyze, vault_reflect, vault_init). vault_topic breaks the pattern by using a noun as the tool name, though its actions (prepare, create, update) are verb-based. This is a minor deviation rather than chaotic inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a knowledge vault management server. Each tool exposes multiple related actions (e.g., vault_read has search/get/list_captures), covering a broad domain without ballooning the surface. The number feels intentional and justified.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers the capture→promote→topic lifecycle well, but there is no direct way to update or delete a promoted note (as opposed to captures and topics). Notes are the core artifact, so the inability to edit or remove them is a notable gap that agents would have to work around.
Average 4.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 1, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that promotion is 'semi-destructive' and that source captures 'cannot be re-promoted,' which is important behavioral context. However, this directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint: false, which implies the tool is not destructive. This contradiction forces a score of 1.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a clear purpose statement, an actions block, and a workflow. However, the actions block redundantly restates the schema's parameters and types, which is unnecessary. The workflow section is valuable but the duplication makes it slightly less concise.
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 essential workflow and the semi-destructive nature of the operation, which is good. However, with no output schema, it does not describe return values or success/failure behavior. It also doesn't mention any error handling or prerequisites beyond calling vault_read, leaving some gaps.
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?
The description repeats the parameter list from the schema with types and defaults, but adds little semantic meaning beyond what the names suggest. The workflow mentions generating title, summary, domain, content, confidence, and tags, providing some context, but parameters like auto_link and aliases are not explained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Promote one or more captures into a structured note.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on promotion of existing captures into notes, while siblings like vault_capture and vault_read handle capture and reading. The 'Actions' section further clarifies the single available action.
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 a detailed WORKFLOW section that explicitly instructs Claude to call vault_read first, then synthesize and confirm with the user before promoting. This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools beyond the workflow.
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 annotation readOnlyHint=true is present, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it mentions caching behavior for clusters ('Cached if graph unchanged') and notes that rebuild_graph returns node/edge counts. This is transparent without contradicting the read-only hint.
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 well-structured and concise, with a clear opening line and a bulleted list of actions. Each line provides actionable information without redundancy, making efficient use of space.
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 all actions and their parameters, which is helpful given the multiple sub-operations. However, it lacks explicit return value descriptions for clusters, connections, and orphans (though action names and phrasing imply outputs). This is a minor gap, especially since no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the role of each parameter within each action (e.g., path is required for connections, depth defaults to 1, limit defaults to 50, offset for pagination). This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema names.
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 analyzes the vault knowledge graph and enumerates four specific analysis operations (rebuild_graph, clusters, connections, orphans). This specific verb+resource focus distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_capture or vault_read, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the action list and the tool's name, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The sibling names hint at other workflows, but no direct guidance is provided.
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 annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by separating actions, noting that list_captures sorts newest first, and providing defaults for limit and include_content. It does not discuss errors or permissions, but the read-only nature is well established.
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 well-structured, presenting a brief overview followed by a clear action list with parameters. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or vague filler.
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?
All 8 parameters are accounted for across the three actions, and the output schema supplements return-value expectations. Minor gaps exist, such as not explicitly noting that 'action' is required or detailing edge-case behavior, but for a read-only composite tool this is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by mapping each parameter to its relevant action: query/directory/tags for search, path for get, and status (with enum values), limit (default 50), and include_content (default False) for list_captures. This provides complete semantic understanding beyond the bare 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 opens with 'Read and search vault content,' clearly identifying the tool's function. It then lists three distinct actions (search, get, list_captures) with specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from write-oriented sibling tools like vault_capture and vault_promote.
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?
Action descriptions such as 'Search vault notes' and 'Read a single file's full content' provide clear context on when to use each mode. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool (e.g., for writing), 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavior. It discloses that snapshots are auto-saved to .brain/snapshots/, and describes what each action yields (topics, connections, shifting focus, missing bridges). It doesn't explicitly state whether drift/blindspots have side effects, but the side effect for snapshot is a notable positive.
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 well-structured with an intro and concise action bullets; every sentence adds value without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement and clear action breakdown make it easy to scan.
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 three actions and their parameters, and explains the output concept for each (snapshot shows topics/connections, drift shows focus changes, blindspots shows missing connections). It lacks explicit return-value formatting details, but no output schema exists, and the description gives enough for an agent to understand what to expect.
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?
The schema has zero description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the action values (snapshot, drift, blindspots) and linking since_days to drift and limit to blindspots, including defaults. This gives each parameter meaningful context 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—reflecting on the knowledge vault—and distinguishes three specific actions (snapshot, drift, blindspots) that set it apart from sibling tools. The verb 'reflect' and resource 'knowledge vault' are specific, and the action list gives concrete functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use each action via probing questions (e.g., 'What does my knowledge look like right now?') and parameter details for drift and blindspots, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools 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.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: deletion is permanent, refinement is lossy, and confirmation is mandatory. It also specifies that for delete, the user must be shown the title, preview, and path, and asks '确认删除？'. These are not mentioned in annotations and greatly enhance transparency.
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 lengthy but extremely well-structured with clear headings, action breakdowns, and a numbered workflow. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure aids comprehension. It could potentially be tightened slightly, but the detail is justified given the tool's complexity.
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 tool's two actions, 7 parameters, confirmation requirements, and lack of output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all parameter details, explains the workflow, and provides safety warnings. Nothing essential is missing 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.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter with constraints: title (≤50 chars), insight (1–3 sentences), source_type (default 'conversation' with alternatives), original (nullable), tags (list), and path (required, must be in captures/). This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the raw 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 dual function: 'Capture a refined insight into the vault, or delete an existing capture.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_read or vault_promote, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit workflow for both save and delete actions, including when to call the tool ('Do NOT call this tool until the user explicitly confirms'), and detailed steps for refinement and confirmation. It also clarifies the difference between save and delete usage, making it clear when each action is appropriate.
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?
The description fully discloses the tool's side effects beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false). It explains that setup may 'scans all unmanaged .md files, classifies them... persists a plan to .brain/import-plan.json', that migrate executes the plan, and that keep_original controls whether source files are preserved. The automatic todo conversion is also disclosed. No contradiction with 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 long but highly structured with clear 'Actions', 'WORKFLOW', and 'Todo conversion' sections. Every sentence adds necessary information for safe and correct usage of a complex tool. No fluff or redundant repetition of schema/annotations.
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 tool's two-action complexity, absence of output schema, and the need to guide an agent through a multi-step migration process, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all states (empty, non-empty, already-initialized), the decision workflow, parameter details, and side effects, leaving no critical operational gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter meaning. It defines the allowed values for 'action' (setup/migrate), explains the 'manual_overrides' structure including required 'path' key and supported override fields (target, title, tags, etc.), and clarifies 'keep_original' with a default and consequence. This completely compensates for the empty 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 core purpose: 'Initialize a new vault or migrate existing Obsidian notes to vault-mcp format.' It goes further to enumerate two distinct actions (setup and migrate) with specific behaviors for each vault state, making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like vault_capture, vault_read, or vault_analyze.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The WORKFLOW section provides explicit step-by-step instructions on when to call setup vs migrate, including when NOT to call migrate ('Claude should NOT call migrate until the user confirms'). It also specifies sequencing (e.g., 'review summary + ambiguous_files' before deciding), making usage clear and unambiguous.
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 minimal readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral traits: progressive disclosure (returns summaries, not full content), the requirement to synthesize rather than concatenate, and the need to wait for user approval before writing. It also notes staleness detection on update.
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 well-structured with a brief summary, action-specific bullets, and a numbered workflow. It is moderately long but every section earns its place; there is no redundant repetition of schema details.
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 tool's complexity (3 actions, 10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the full lifecycle, parameter usage, workflow, and even return behavior for prepare ('returns summaries, not full content'). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by grouping parameters per action and specifying constraints such as 'cluster_id OR note_paths (pick one)' and 'topic_path (required) for update.' It maps all 10 schema parameters to their relevant actions, adding meaning far beyond raw schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose precisely: 'Manage topic lifecycle: prepare materials, create, or update.' It enumerates the three distinct actions (prepare, create, update) with clear verbs and resources, and the workflow distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit, numbered workflow that Claude MUST follow, including when to call prepare, when deep-reading via vault_read is appropriate, and when to invoke create vs update. This goes beyond vague guidance and includes a mandatory confirmation step before writing.
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:

[![knowledge-in-a-vat MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/oliverxuzy-ai/knowledge-in-a-vat/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/oliverxuzy-ai/knowledge-in-a-vat)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![knowledge-in-a-vat MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/oliverxuzy-ai/knowledge-in-a-vat/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/oliverxuzy-ai/knowledge-in-a-vat)

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/oliverxuzy-ai/knowledge-in-a-vat'

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