Skip to main content
Glama
ruliana

mcp-pkm-logseq

by ruliana
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.2.3

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: retrieving notes, retrieving instructions for notes retrieval, and retrieving todos. No overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow the consistent 'get_' prefix and a descriptive noun pattern (get_personal_notes, get_personal_notes_instructions, get_todo_list). No naming style mixing.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is minimal but appropriate for a read-only retrieval interface over a personal knowledge base. Slightly scoped down but not underdeveloped for its purpose.

    Completeness3/5

    Covers retrieval of notes and todos, but lacks any creation, update, or deletion capabilities. While the server may be intentionally read-only, obvious lifecycle operations are missing, limiting agent workflows.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It mentions return format (markdown) and date formats but lacks details on performance, auth, or side effects.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    Description is structured with Args and Returns sections but could be more concise; date format explanation could be integrated into parameter descriptions.

    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 tool with 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers purpose, parameters, date format, and return type adequately.

    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%, but description adds significant meaning: clarifies 'done' param, optional date filters, and date format conventions 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?

    Description clearly states the tool retrieves todo list from Logseq and distinguishes from siblings (get_personal_notes) by focusing on todos rather than notes.

    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?

    Description implies usage (get todos in personal knowledge base) but does not provide explicit when to use vs alternatives or exclusions.

    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?

    Despite no annotations, the description discloses return format (markdown, nested lists, double-square-bracket links), date format, and empty returns. It lacks details on permissions or rate limits but adequately covers behavioral aspects for a read tool.

    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 well-structured with paragraphs and an Args section, but the inclusion of markdown link and date format details, while useful, makes it slightly verbose. Overall, it earns its length.

    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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (markdown, nested list, links) and empty results. All three parameters are documented, and sibling tools are distinguished. It provides sufficient context 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?

    The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that topics are case-insensitive and optional with date ranges, and provides date format examples. This compensates for the schema's minimal descriptions, though it could include more on parameter 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 'Retrieve personal notes from Logseq' and distinguishes from siblings like get_todo_list and get_personal_notes_instructions by focusing on topic-based retrieval of notes.

    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 specifies use for finding relevant information on a topic or user preferences and notes that topics are optional if a date range is given. It does not explicitly exclude use cases but provides clear context for when to employ the tool.

    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. It indicates a read operation returning instructions and organizational details, but does not specify output format (e.g., plain text), response size, or any side effects. More detail would improve transparency.

    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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful context. No wasted words.

    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 instruction tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does and what it returns. It is complete given the tool's simplicity.

    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?

    There are no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage). The description adds valuable meaning by explaining what the tool returns (instructions, tags, workflows), exceeding the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

    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 it returns instructions on using the get_personal_notes tool, specifically the user's organization in Logseq including tags and workflows. It distinguishes from siblings like get_personal_notes (retrieves notes) and get_todo_list (retrieves todos).

    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 when needing guidance on querying personal notes, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond naming siblings. The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

    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

mcp-pkm-logseq MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-pkm-logseq 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/ruliana/mcp-pkm-logseq'

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