Skip to main content
Glama
ppetru

TiddlyWiki MCP Server

by ppetru
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a completely distinct purpose: create, delete, search, and update. There is no ambiguity or overlap among them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern: create_tiddler, delete_tiddler, search_tiddlers, update_tiddler. The singular vs plural in 'tiddler' vs 'tiddlers' is negligible.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a TiddlyWiki server. It covers the essential operations without being too sparse or overloaded.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover create, read (via search), update, and delete. A dedicated get_tiddler by ID is missing, but search can filter by title, so the gap is minor.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

    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
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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

  • Behavior3/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral traits of showing content and requesting approval before deletion, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens after approval. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is two sentences long, no unnecessary words, and front-loads the key action. Every sentence earns its place.

    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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior. It could mention side effects or how the approval request is handled, but it is mostly complete for a delete tool.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'title' described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a tiddler', and it distinguishes from sibling tools (create, search, update) by specifying the action and the additional step of showing content and requesting approval.

    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 a confirmation step but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_tiddler or whether there is a way to delete without approval. No guidance on prerequisites or conditions 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?

    No annotations provided. The description explains that results include metadata and optionally text, details pagination mechanics (offset/limit apply to filter-only, defaults differ by mode), and supports hybrid searches. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state it.

    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?

    Concise two-sentence overview followed by parameter details. Each sentence is informative and front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary text.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return behavior (metadata and optional text). It addresses pagination, hybrid mode, and text inclusion. Missing explicit sorting or ordering information, but not critical for search functionality.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by providing examples for filter and semantic queries, explaining default limits per mode, and clarifying pagination applicability. This goes beyond the 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?

    Clearly states the tool searches tiddlers using filter syntax, semantic similarity, or both. Provides specific examples and distinguishes itself from the CRUD sibling tools (create, delete, update).

    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?

    Describes when to use each search mode (filter, semantic, hybrid) and pagination behavior, but lacks explicit when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives. The distinction from CRUD tools is implicit.

    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?

    Given no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool shows a diff, requests approval before applying, and preserves metadata like created timestamp. This is fairly transparent, though it lacks details on auth needs, rate limits, or what happens on failure. Still above average.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second adds key behavioral traits, third clarifies field support. Front-loaded and efficient.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the update behavior and arbitrary fields but does not explain return values, error handling (e.g., tiddler not found), or the full scope of what 'preserves metadata' entails. Adequate but not complete.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions support for arbitrary custom fields, which reinforces the schema's additionalProperties but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'caption, summary, author'). No additional parameter context is 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 action 'Update an existing tiddler' and distinguishes it from sibling tools (create, delete, search) by name and description. It also adds specific behavior like showing a diff and requesting approval, which clarifies the tool's role.

    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 the tool is for updating existing tiddlers, and the sibling tool names provide context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. However, the behavioral note about diff/approval suggests an interactive use case.

    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 fully discloses the non-immediate nature of the action ('shows a preview and requests approval'). It also mentions support for custom fields, adding useful behavioral context. No contradictions.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose and key behavior, and contains no unnecessary information. Every sentence is essential.

    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, key behavior (preview/approval), and custom fields. Without an output schema, it does not mention return values, but for a creation tool this is acceptable. Slightly missing confirmation details, but overall complete given context.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by explicitly noting that arbitrary custom fields beyond the schema are supported, which is not evident from the schema alone.

    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 ('create a new tiddler'), identifies the resource ('tiddler'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (delete, search, update) by specifying creation-specific behavior like preview and approval.

    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 for creation by contrasting with siblings (no search/delete/update) and notes a key behavior (preview/approval). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but this is partially mitigated by sibling names.

    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

tiddlywiki-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

tiddlywiki-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/ppetru/tiddlywiki-mcp'

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