Skip to main content
Glama
seandavi

vault-mcp

by seandavi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to vault-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • ai-brain-mcp

      HenryCordes
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server that exposes an Obsidian-style markdown vault as agent-readable memory. It provides tools for search, read, graph, and guarded capture without using embeddings.
      1
      MIT

    • Manent

      colopisalvatore
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server that turns a git-versioned Markdown vault into a queryable memory for AI agents, providing tools like brain_search, brain_read, and brain_neighbors.
      Apache 2.0

    • Codex Vault

      Avery320
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server for browsing Obsidian-compatible Markdown vaults, searching notes, viewing backlinks and knowledge graphs, and adding selected content to chat context.
      6 npm
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 12 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools target distinct actions (read, search, query, create, edit, rename, etc.), but search and query both retrieve notes via different mechanisms, and edit_note vs update_note have subtle differences that could cause misselection. Overall, the detailed descriptions help clarify boundaries.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Eight tools follow a verb_noun pattern (read_note, create_note, edit_note, rename_note, update_note, add_inbox_item, append_daily, refresh_index), but four tools use single-word names (query, search, related, recent) that deviate from the pattern. This mixed convention is still readable but not fully consistent.

    Tool Count5/5

    Twelve tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a domain of this scope. Each tool serves a clear purpose, covering retrieval, creation, modification, and maintenance without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness3/5

    The vault domain has solid coverage for creating, reading, updating, renaming, and querying notes, but there is no delete or remove tool, which is a notable gap in the note lifecycle. Additional operations like archiving are also absent, though the core workflows are mostly covered.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessResponsive

    Resources