pow-mcp-rag-new

by powmarx

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: v1.1.9
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_code vs search_specs vs search_logs are well-separated, and management tools (add_project, add_file, add_folder, add_pattern) have distinct scope. The only potential overlap is search_docs vs search_specs, where search_docs searches general documentation while search_specs filters to specifications/design docs, which could cause occasional misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: search_*, add_*, remove_*, list_*, get_*, find_*, index_*, clear_*, compare_*. The verbs are descriptive and predictable, making it easy for an agent to guess tool names for actions.
Tool Count4/5
At 20 tools, the server is slightly heavy but each tool covers a distinct operation within the RAG domain: project management, file indexing, semantic search, code navigation, and log search. While more than the typical 15-tool threshold, the count is appropriate for the server's broad scope and each tool has a clear role.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: add/remove projects and files, search across docs/code/logs, retrieve document chunks, and list metadata. The only minor gap is that after clear_project_index there's no explicit reindex-all command, requiring users to re-add patterns or files manually, but this is a workaround rather than a dead end.
Average 4.3/5 across 20 of 20 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 38 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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?
The description discloses the text-matching method and indexed-file scope, and reports the return format with context snippets. However, with no annotations, it does not address potential limitations like case sensitivity, regex behavior, or behavior when no matches are found.
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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args and Returns sections are clearly structured, and there is no redundant 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 simple read-only lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, method, input parameters, and return type. It doesn't mention edge cases or alternatives, but is otherwise sufficient given the tool's simplicity.
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 0%, but the Args section provides some explanation for both parameters. variable_name is defined clearly, while project is only described as an 'optional filter', adding minimal value beyond the schema's default value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds variables, constants, enum values, and #defines, and mentions definitions and usages. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_code, but the focus on specific identifiers gives a distinct purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_code or find_function. The description implies usage for variable lookups but does not state exclusions or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals what the tool returns and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, what happens for nonexistent projects, or any permission requirements. This is adequate for a simple get summary but leaves some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence overview, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every line provides necessary information without any redundant fluff.
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?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return fields in detail. It provides the essential context (indexed project overview) and input semantics. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit error behavior, but that isn't critical for a straightforward get operation.
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 schema has one parameter 'project' with no description (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It does by saying 'project: Project name' and referring to an 'indexed project', clarifying that the parameter is a project name and must correspond to an already-indexed project. It doesn't provide additional details like case sensitivity or exact-match behavior, but it minimally covers the meaning.
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 specifies the action ('Get a quick overview') and the resource ('an indexed project'), then lists exactly what the overview includes: description, file counts by type, and total chunks. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_document (which fetches a document) and list_projects (which lists projects).
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 phrase 'of an indexed project' provides clear context that the tool applies to projects that have already been indexed, distinguishing it from tools like add_project or list_projects. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it provides clear context without explicit exclusions.
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('List') and scopes the behavior to 'indexed files,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose details about permissions, pagination, or what happens if the project doesn't exist or isn't indexed, beyond the basic return description.
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 exceptionally concise: one main sentence, an Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repeated schema information. The structure is intuitive and front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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?
This is a relatively simple tool with only two parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. It covers the required project name, the optional filter, and the basic return format. It could be more complete by noting potential error behavior or confirming that all files are returned when no filter is set, but the current description is sufficient for the tool's 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?
The input schema provides no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by giving an example for 'project' ('my-project') and enumerating the allowed values for 'file_type' ('header', 'source', 'documentation', 'config'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all indexed files') and the resource scope ('for a project'), with an optional filter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_projects (which lists projects) and search_docs (which searches document content) by focusing on enumerating indexed files.
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 provides clear context on what the tool does (list indexed files for a project, optional type filter) but does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_code or get_document. The usage is implied through the verb and resource, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that source patterns are auto-detected and indexing happens immediately, and that a summary is returned. However, it omits behavioral details such as what happens if the project name already exists, whether the operation is reversible, or potential side effects like large directory scans.
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 and well-structured: a single main sentence followed by an Args/Returns block. Every sentence provides necessary information, and the format is clean and scannable.
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 moderate-complexity tool with no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, both arguments, and the return value. The output schema exists, so return details are not strictly needed. However, it could be more complete by mentioning edge cases like duplicate project names or prerequisite checks (e.g., path must exist, permissions). Overall, it is sufficient for a straightforward invocation.
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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining that 'name' is a unique project name with an example, and 'path' is an absolute path to the project root. This adds clear 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 'Add a new project to the RAG index' with specific actions: auto-detects source patterns and indexes immediately. This differentiates it from sibling tools like add_file or add_folder by focusing on the whole project rather than individual files or folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a new project should be added to the index, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., add_file for single files) or provide conditions or exclusions. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is included.
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 full burden of transparency. It explains that the tool performs semantic search and returns document chunks with metadata, but does not disclose potential limitations such as requiring an index, read-only nature, or error behavior. For a straightforward search tool this is acceptable but not highly informative.
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 and front-loaded with the core purpose sentence. It then uses an Args section to detail parameters and a Returns section to describe output, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds 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 the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value, which is adequate for a simple search tool. It does not discuss edge cases like empty results or errors, but the presence of an output schema lessens the need for explicit return details. Overall, it is nearly complete but leaves a few behavioral nuances unaddressed.
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 provides zero parameter descriptions, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: query is a natural language string, project is an optional filter with a note to leave empty for all projects, top_k has a default and maximum, and file_type lists allowed values. This adds significant 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 performs 'Semantic search across indexed project documentation,' specifying both the action and the resource. This differentiates it from sibling search tools like search_code and search_specs, which target different content types.
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 documentation search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. No reference is made to sibling tools or alternative search methods, leaving usage guidance implicit.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return type (header declarations and source usages) and the existence of a project filter, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any limitations on scope, or how results are ordered or paginated.
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 and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose, an Args block, and a Returns note. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting is scannable.
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 moderate complexity (2 params, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and return value. It lacks detail on edge cases (e.g., function not found) but is complete enough for expected usage.
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%, and the description compensates well by providing an Args section with examples for function_name and explaining project as an optional filter. However, it does not specify default behavior when project is empty or accepted value formats.
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: to find where a function is defined (headers) and used (source files). It uses a specific verb 'find' and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like find_variable and search_code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool via its focus on function definitions and usages, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The optional project filter adds context, yet there is no direct 'when not to use' 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the return format ('Side-by-side results from both projects') and the default for top_k, but does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., projects must be indexed), read-only nature, or potential limitations. This is adequate for a search tool but lacks deeper behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a brief use-case sentence, then structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting is clean and scannable without unnecessary verbosity.
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 moderate complexity (4 scalar parameters), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. A small gap is the lack of explanation about how results are ordered or what 'side-by-side' entails beyond a list, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args section. For query, it gives a concrete example; for project_a and project_b, it clarifies their roles; for top_k, it specifies the default. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 searches for the same concept in two projects side by side, which is a specific verb (search) and resource (two projects). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that search within a single project (search_code, search_docs) by emphasizing the comparative, side-by-side nature across two projects.
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 it is 'useful for comparing implementations across two versions or variants of the same project,' giving a clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient given the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses partial matching behavior with examples and notes that results are 'Document chunks containing the hex pattern with file and project info.' However, it does not mention any potential limitations or required index state, making it a moderate disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opener, a usage sentence, an Args list, and a Returns line. No redundant content; each sentence serves a purpose.
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 3-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, parameters, and return type. It does not discuss limitations like index freshness or case sensitivity, but is otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with an Args section that explains each parameter, provides examples for pattern, clarifies project filtering, and gives top_k default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search for hex error codes or patterns in indexed documents using text matching.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like search_docs or search_code by focusing on hex patterns and partial matches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly gives usage context: 'Use this for device error codes, packet IDs, or any hex value lookup.' It does not name alternative tools for other search types, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance, but the use case is clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it filters out source code and returns 'relevant documentation chunks,' which is useful, but it omits behavioral details like whether search is semantic or keyword-based, whether prior indexing is required, or how ranking works. This is adequate but not rich.
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 purpose statement, usage hint, Args list, and Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler 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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format adequately. It lacks some context such as prerequisite indexing or error scenarios, but these are not essential for basic invocation. Sibling differentiation is partially addressed but could be stronger.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates with an 'Args' section explaining each parameter: natural language query, optional project filter, and top_k with default and maximum. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults, providing sufficient guidance for invocation.
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 a specific verb+resource: 'Search only specification and documentation files' with an explicit filter ('filters out source code'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_code and search_docs by targeting a specific document scope.
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?
Provides a clear use case: 'Use when you need "what does the spec say about X" without code noise.' This indicates when to use it and implies not using it for code, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as search_docs, leaving some ambiguity for overlapping documentation searches.
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 that indexed data is deleted while config remains, that the project can be re-indexed later, and the return type (confirmation with chunk count). However, it does not explicitly warn about irreversibility of the index deletion or side effects on active searches.
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 front-loaded with the main action and uses a compact Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds value: purpose, non-destructive scope, parameter clarification, and expected return.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple 1-parameter signature and existing output schema, the description adequately covers the operation, parameter, and return. It could be slightly more explicit about the impact on search availability, but overall it is complete 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the 'name' parameter as the project name and providing an example ('my_device_logs'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only lists the parameter as a string.
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 action ('Clear all indexed data for a project') and the scope ('all'). The phrase 'without removing it from config.yaml' clearly distinguishes this from remove_project, and the mention of re-indexing differentiates its intent.
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: use this when you want to clear indexed data but preserve project configuration. It implies a contrast with remove_project (which removes from config) but does not explicitly name the alternative or provide a when-not-to-use directive.
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 transparency burden. It discloses the time-window filtering behavior and the return summary (files processed, chunks created, time range). However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing indexes or blocking behavior, so it is not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections for usage, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter list is formatted clearly. It is thorough without being verbose.
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 purpose, usage context, all parameters, and return values, which is sufficient for a tool with a simple operation and an output schema. It lacks details on permissions or side effects, but given the available structured data, it is nearly 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?
The description provides full semantics for all four parameters, which is critical since schema descriptions are absent. It includes helpful examples for file patterns and time formats. However, it incorrectly marks 'project' as 'required' while the schema does not require it, which could mislead an agent into thinking it must be provided.
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 indexes a specific log file or a time window within it, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from background reindexing, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 to use this tool 'instead of waiting for background reindex on large log files', giving a clear when-to-use directive. It effectively communicates the alternative to this explicit indexing approach.
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 description discloses key side effects: the file is persisted in config.yaml and automatically re-indexed on future runs. It also mentions the return format (confirmation with chunk count or error), which is important behavioral context given no annotations were provided.
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 with purpose, args, and returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the leading sentence provides immediate orientation.
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 essential information for selecting and invoking the tool is present: purpose, parameter requirements, persistence side effect, and return format. It lacks explicit mention of alternatives (e.g., add_folder) and edge-case error conditions, but for a 2-parameter tool this is nearly 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?
Both parameters are defined with meaningful semantics: file_path is an absolute path, and project is an existing project name. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions, making invocation unambiguous.
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 indexes a specific file into an existing project, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning persistence in config.yaml for automatic re-indexing, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use for individual files, project must already exist, and it persists for future runs. It does not explicitly name alternatives like add_folder or add_project, but the 'must already exist' requirement implies when the alternative is needed.
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 carries the burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves 'all indexed chunks' and returns 'full reconstructed document content', which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention failure cases or whether the document must already be indexed, but as a read-only retrieval tool, the provided behavior is sufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a clear 'Args' section, and a 'Returns' statement. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler 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 simple retrieval tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return value. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., missing document) but is adequate for typical use.
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 description includes an 'Args' section with examples for both parameters (e.g., 'src/Device.h') and clarifies that file_path is relative. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal 'Project' and 'File Path' titles, providing concrete guidance for correct invocation.
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 'Retrieve all indexed chunks of a specific document' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by emphasizing full document retrieval rather than search results. The return statement further clarifies it outputs reconstructed content.
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 tool's context is clear: it is for retrieving a specific document by file path and project, as opposed to search tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The use case is easily inferred from the parameters and the distinction from search siblings.
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 burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list with document counts and descriptions, which is a read-only operation implied by 'List'. It also clarifies it only covers indexed projects. This is transparent enough for a simple list tool, though it does not explicitly state side-effect-free 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?
The description is extremely concise: one clear sentence plus a return summary. Every word earns its place with no fluff or 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 parameter-less list tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It states the purpose, the scope ('indexed projects'), and the return contents (document counts and descriptions), leaving no important gaps.
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 the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters, so no additional parameter explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all indexed projects and their statistics, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('indexed projects'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_summary (which targets a single project) and compare_projects (which compares multiple projects).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: use when you need an overview of all indexed projects. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope ('all indexed projects') and the absence of parameters make the primary use case clear.
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?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive action ('Deletes all indexed chunks') and the config preservation side effect, and also mentions the return value ('Confirmation of removal with chunk count deleted'). This provides strong transparency about what the tool does and its outcomes.
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 and well-structured: a clear first sentence with the action, followed by bullet-like details for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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 low complexity (one parameter), the description is complete. It covers the action, side effects, config preservation, and return format. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still mentions the confirmation and chunk count. No significant gaps remain.
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 provides minimal info (a required 'name' string), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the parameter's meaning ('Project name to remove') and providing a concrete example ('my_device_logs'). This is helpful, though it could be even more detailed about name formats or constraints.
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: 'Remove a project from the RAG index' and elaborates with specific effects ('Deletes all indexed chunks', 'marks the project as removed in config.yaml'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_file_from_index, which targets a single file rather than an entire project.
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 indicates when to use the tool (when a project should be removed from the RAG index) and mentions preserving configuration for future re-add, which implies a benefit. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as clear_project_index or remove_file_from_index, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternative selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses meaningful traits: query is optional if filters are provided, top_k is clamped to a range, error_code_pattern is a prefix match, and results include relevance scores. It covers parameter behavior but does not mention auth, rate limits, or failure modes, which are not critical for a search tool.
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 one-sentence summary, an Args list for each parameter, and a Returns line. Each sentence earns its place, and the format is scannable for an agent. No redundancy or 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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers param semantics, return format, and clamping behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., logs must be indexed first) and explicitly noting the trade-off between semantic search and structured filters, but it is largely sufficient.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It adds significant meaning: max length for query, allowed severity values, ISO 8601 format for time ranges, prefix matching behavior for error codes, and the default/max/clamping for top_k. This transforms the bare schema into a usable spec.
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 'Search indexed log events with structured filtering and semantic search,' which clearly states the verb (Search), resource (indexed log events), and differentiates from sibling tools that search other content types (docs, code, specs). The dual-mode aspect (structured filtering and semantic search) adds specificity.
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 the tool: when searching log events. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource ('log events') implicitly distinguishes it from sibling search tools. No when-not guidance is given, but the intended use is unambiguous.
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 carries the burden. It discloses persistence in config.yaml, automatic re-indexing behavior, and the return value (confirmation with counts or error). It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing patterns, but it covers the main behavioral traits.
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 and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, an Args block, and a Returns block. No redundant information, and each sentence adds value.
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 three parameters, no annotations, and a clear output description, the tool is fully specified. It covers prerequisites, behavior, persistence, and return value, making it self-sufficient 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.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the Args section explains all three parameters: folder_path must be absolute, project must already exist, and pattern defaults to '**/*'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/required/default fields.
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+resource: 'Index all files in a folder into an existing project.' This clearly distinguishes from siblings like add_file (single file) and add_pattern (pattern-based indexing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by noting the project must already exist and that the folder pattern persists for automatic re-indexing on future runs. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references, but the context is 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the destructive scope (all indexed chunks for a specific file) and discloses the return value (confirmation with number of chunks removed). It lacks cautionary notes about irreversibility, but the scope is unambiguous.
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 purpose, and uses a clean Args/Returns structure. Every sentence contributes value.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, both parameters, and the return value. It is fully adequate for this complexity level.
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 0%, yet the description provides an Args section that explains file_path and project with concrete examples, adding meaning far beyond the bare schema titles.
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 and object: 'Remove all indexed chunks for a specific file from a project's index.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like clear_project_index (removes entire index) and remove_project (removes whole project).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states the intended use case: 'Useful for removing large log files or outdated files without clearing the entire project.' This implies the alternative of clearing the entire index, though it doesn't name the tool directly.
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 explains that it filters out documentation and includes a headers_only option to focus on API contracts. It also states the return type ('Relevant source code chunks'), adding useful behavioral context beyond just 'search'.
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 concisely structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and it front-loads the key purpose and usage guidance.
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 tool is well-covered: it has an output schema, and the description explains the return format, parameter semantics, and behavioral filtering. Given the moderate complexity and available sibling context, this description is complete for an AI agent to use 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?
The description includes an Args section that explains each parameter (query, project, top_k, headers_only) with details like defaults and meaning, which the input schema lacks (0% description coverage). This fully compensates for the schema's barrenness.
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 'Search only source code and header files' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly filters out documentation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_docs and search_specs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear usage context: 'Use when you need implementation details.' This implies when to choose this tool over documentation searches, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state 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.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral details: immediate indexing, persistence in config.yaml for future runs, the requirement that the project must already exist, and the return value format (confirmation with counts or error). This goes well beyond a minimal statement.
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 clear intro, usage guidance, parametrized args, returns, and examples. Each sentence is purposeful and there is no filler.
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 tool accepting 4 parameters, it covers all of them, explains side effects (immediate indexing and persistence), provides return behavior, and includes two examples. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to elaborate on return types further.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does. Every parameter is explained with meaning, format, and context: project must exist, pattern is relative with an example, type lists valid values, and description is optional. This adds substantial value 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 clearly states the action: 'Add a glob pattern to an existing project and index matching files immediately.' It specifies the resource (existing project) and the mechanism (glob pattern), and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_folder/add_file by emphasizing pattern-based indexing rather than concrete paths.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit guidance: 'Use this when you want to index a specific set of files by pattern rather than pointing at a concrete folder path.' This provides a when and when-not, but it does not name the alternative sibling tool (e.g., add_folder), so it stops short of a perfect 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:

[![pow-mcp-rag-new MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/powmarx/pow-mcp-rag-new/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/powmarx/pow-mcp-rag-new)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pow-mcp-rag-new MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/powmarx/pow-mcp-rag-new/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/powmarx/pow-mcp-rag-new)

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/powmarx/pow-mcp-rag-new'

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