Skip to main content
Glama
ricleedo

MCP Embedding Storage Server

by ricleedo
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have perfectly distinct purposes: one saves content to the vector database, while the other searches for information within it. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these operations, making it impossible for an agent to confuse them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb-noun pattern with hyphenated names (save-memory and search-memory). The verbs 'save' and 'search' clearly indicate the action, and 'memory' serves as a consistent noun, creating a predictable and readable naming convention throughout.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, this server feels under-scoped for an embedding storage system. While save and search are core operations, typical vector database interfaces would include additional tools like delete, update, list, or manage collections, making the current set appear thin and incomplete for the domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for an embedding storage server. It lacks essential operations such as deleting or updating stored memories, listing available entries, managing collections or namespaces, and performing advanced searches (e.g., by metadata). This will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform full lifecycle management of stored data.

  • Average 2.8/5 across 2 of 2 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
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching a vector database but doesn't describe what happens during search (e.g., similarity matching, ranking), what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

    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 extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, making it somewhat under-specified rather than optimally efficient.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given no annotations, no output schema, and a search operation that typically has behavioral nuances (ranking, thresholds, result format), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what gets returned, how results are ordered, or any limitations of the search. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'maxMatches') adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description 'Search for information in vector database' states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('vector database'), but it's vague about what specific information is being searched. It distinguishes from the sibling 'save-memory' by being a search rather than save operation, but lacks specificity about the search scope or content type.

    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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied this is for searching stored information (contrasting with 'save-memory' for saving), there's no explicit context about use cases, prerequisites, or limitations. The description doesn't mention when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative approaches.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Save content to vector database' implies a write operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether saves are idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the path already exists. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

    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 maximally concise with a single, clear sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after saving (success indicators, returned data), error handling, or the vector database context. The agent lacks critical information needed to use this tool effectively in real scenarios.

    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 adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage, all 5 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how path and parentPath interact) or provide usage examples, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra 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 action ('Save') and target resource ('content to vector database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'search-memory' beyond the obvious verb difference, missing an opportunity to clarify the complementary relationship between save and search operations.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'search-memory' tool, prerequisites for saving content, or any constraints about when saving is appropriate versus other operations. The agent receives no contextual usage information.

    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

Knowledge-EmbeddingAPI-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

Knowledge-EmbeddingAPI-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/ricleedo/Knowledge-EmbeddingAPI-MCP'

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