vhdl-rag-mcp

by ru551n

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: domain-scoped searches (docs, VHDL, code) are separated from a fused all-domain search, and source retrieval plus sync/reindex operations are unambiguous. The descriptions reinforce the boundaries, so an agent should rarely misselect.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: search_docs, search_vhdl, search_code, search_knowledge, get_source, sync_repositories, and reindex_repository. repository_status breaks the pattern by using a noun phrase, but the overall naming is still predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
Eight tools is well-scoped for a RAG/search MCP server: domain-specific searches, a combined search, source retrieval, status, and index maintenance each earn their place. There is no obvious bloat or redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The server covers the full expected surface for VHDL RAG: searching documentation, VHDL source, general code, and all domains together, plus retrieving exact source content and managing repository indexing state. The sync and reindex tools close the otherwise common operational gap.
Average 3.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 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
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the risk profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context, notably one-result-per-section behavior and how the symbols parameter matches code snippet identifiers, but it does not describe pagination, output structure, or any special matching behavior for the regular query.
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?
Two succinct sentences convey the tool's domain, content scope, result granularity, and a special parameter behavior. Every clause earns its place and there is no fluff or resuppLI.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is usable for a read-only documentation search, but context is incomplete: the category and repository parameters are undefined, there is no guidance about how the tool relates to the sibling search tools, and the meaning of 'one result per section' is not expanded enough to set why that limitation matters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the symbols parameter; query, limit, category, and repository receive no semantic explanation beyond their raw names and defaults. This leaves a significant gap for an agent choosing how to populate the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Search' and identifies a domain/resource, 'VHDL-related documentation', while enumerating content types: coding standards, design guides, conventions. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool search_vhdl.
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 communicates a search scope but does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_code, search_knowledge, or the similarly named search_vhdl. There are no explicit conditions or exclusion criteria provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the tool 'drops and rebuilds all of its chunks', which is destructive behavior, but the annotations set destructiveHint=false. This contradicts the annotation and leaves the agent with conflicting signals about whether the tool is safe or destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence: it starts with 'Fully reindex one repository', adds an essential parenthetical about destructiveness, and then a concrete use case. Every phrase contributes value with no waste.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the single repository parameter is simple. However, the clash between the description's 'drops' language and the destructiveHint false annotation undermines the tool's overall safety context, and the parameter format remains underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain how the 'repository' parameter should be identified, whether it is a name, ID, or path. It only repeats that 'one repository' is reindexed, so it does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb, 'reindex', a resource, 'repository', and the precise scope: 'fully', 'drops and rebuilds all of its chunks'. It also names concrete use cases, making it clearly distinguishable from the sibling search/status/sync tools.
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 says when to use the tool: 'after config changes or to repair a drifted index'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct the user to a sibling alternative, but the use case is clear enough.
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 readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature. The description adds meaning beyond that by clary specifying the result granularity ('one result per function/class') and the special behavior of 'symbols' (matches identifiers referenced in the unit). This gives useful behavioral details not present in the annotations concurrently.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a concise two-sentence block. The first sentence says what the tool does and states its granularity, while the second explains the non-obvious 'symbols' parameter behavior. Every sentence carries functional value and the core purpose is frontal-loaded.
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 five parameters but only one is required and their semantics are mostly absent; the description explains only one optional parameter. The tool has an output schema, so return exploitation is not needed, but the optional `category', 'repository', and 'limit' parameters remain unclear, leaving a evaluable operational gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It only clarifies 'symbols'; the meaning of 'query', 'limit', 'category', and 'repository' remains undocumented. Given five parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is insufficient for an agent to use all capabilities with confidence.
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 ('Search general source code') and specifies the resource (C/C++, Python) and a distinctive granularity ('one result per function/class'). It is also differentiates from siblings like search_docs, search_vhdl, and search_knowledge by being the general code search.
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 this tool: for general source-code search rather than docs, VHDL, or knowledge searches. It does not explicit name alternatives or provide exclusion rules, but the resource scope and the symbol matching note give adequate context for most agent decisions.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description supplements this with useful behavioral detail: all domains are searched at once and results are fused via RRF for fair interleaving. This goes beyond the structured annotation without contradicting it.
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 tight sentences: the first states the core behavior, and the second gives a usage criterion and concrete example. There is no filler, fluff, or repetition of schema/annotation details.
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?
It is adequately complete for tool selection: it says what the tool searches, how it combines results, and when to use it. However, the shape has 5 undocumented parameters and an output schema, so an agent still lacks detail on what symbols/category/repository constrain and what an RRF fusion result looks like
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema parameter description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of documenting parameters, but it never mentions limit, symbols, category, or repository. Only 'query' behavior is implied through 'Search ALL domains...', leaving agents to guess what the optional filters do.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and clear scope: 'Search ALL domains (VHDL, documentation, code) at once'. It also names a concrete behavior, RRF fusion, which distinguishes this tool from domain-specific siblings like search_docs 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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use when the question may span domains' and provides a realistic cross-domain example. It does not explicitly name the domain-specific alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the intended use case is conveyed clearly enough.
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already provides the key safety trait. The description adds that the tool lists all configured repositories and includes sync error state, which is useful context, but does not address more specific behaviors like pagination or result size limits. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One clear, front-loaded sentence that states the action first, then lists the output fields. Every word earns its place 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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with a readOnlyHint annotation and an output schema, this description fully communicates what the tool does and what the agent should expect. No critical 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter burden on the description. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool; nothing further 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?
Description starts with a clear verb ('Show') and identifies the resource ('every configured repository'), then enumerates the exact fields returned. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools that search, sync, or reindex.
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 that this tool is for inspecting repository state, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of sync_repositories or reindex_repository. The read-only status context is clear but no alternatives or exclusion conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation `readOnlyHint=true` already signals a safe read operation. The description goes beyond this by noting that it returns exact current content and includes commit attribution, which tells the agent more about what to expect without repeating the annotation.
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 focused sentences with no fluff. The primary action and subject are front-loaded, and the value add about `file` is kept brief.
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?
With `readOnlyHint` set, an existing output schema, and a fairly simple parameter shape, the description gives most of what an agent needs to use the tool after a search. The remaining gaps are the exact form of `repository` and line-range boundary behavior, which are useful but not crippling.
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%, so the description partially compensates: it clearly explains `file` as the repository-relative path from a search result and introduces the concept of line ranges. However, `repository` is left only with its name, and start/end line semantics are not fully specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('indexed file' with optional line range), and places it cleanly in the repository/search context. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling search and repository-maintenance tools.
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 gives concrete usage context by explaining that `file` comes from a search result's source line, and that the tool reads from a synced repository. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use it, but the intended workflow is evident.
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?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: the search is hybrid semantic/exact, symbols restrict to chunks referencing identifiers, and category/repository narrow results. It does not describe index-freshness limitations, but output schema and read-only promise reduce that burden.
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 front-loaded with purpose, then dives into parameter semantics with backtick highlighting and a concrete `symbols` example. Every sentence contributes value, though the combination of hybrid-search jargon and parameter explanations makes it dense rather than simple.
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 read-only search tool, the description covers the core behavior and all non-obvious filters. The presence of an output schema means the return-value structure is already handled externally. A brief note on indexed-repository freshness or when to prefer search_code would improve completeness, but this is enough for correct invocation.
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?
Given the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates for `symbols`, `category`, and `repository` with concrete semantics and a useful example. `query` is naturally explained by the search purpose, and `limit` has an obvious default and title, leaving no major ambiguous parameters.
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 clear action and resource: 'Search VHDL source: entities, architectures, processes, packages, functions'. It also distinguishes the tool from generic search siblings by confining it to VHDL and promising a hybrid semantic/exact-identifier behavior.
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 VHDL-specific phrase immediately signals when to use the tool—when searching VHDL source constructs—but no alternative tools or exclusions are named. This is clear context, yet lacks the explicit sibling routing that would earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the sync updates the index, explicitly signals reusability ('safe to call any time'), and discloses containment of failures per repository.
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 short, immediately front-loads the core action, and each clause adds a distinct piece of information: scope, mechanism, safety, and failure containment. There is no fluff or repeated schema content.
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 simple one-parameter operation with an output schema present, the description covers the core behavior, the optional input semantics, and failure behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.
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% and no property descriptions are present. The description clarifies the important default behavior ('default: all') and implies that the optional 'repositories' list filters which ones are synced, but it does not add detail about the expected string format or how omitted values behave beyond the default. It partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 ('sync'), the resource ('repositories'), and the mechanism ('fetch the ref, chunk changed files, update the index'). The word 'incrementally' meaningfully distinguishes it from a full rebuild and brings out the tool's intended 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?
It gives clear usage context: callable any time, defaults to all repositories, and supports an optional subset list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but 'incremental' and 'safe to call any time' provide enough orientation for an agent.
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:

[![vhdl-rag-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ru551n/vhdl-rag-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ru551n/vhdl-rag-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![vhdl-rag-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ru551n/vhdl-rag-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ru551n/vhdl-rag-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ru551n/vhdl-rag-mcp'

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