mcp-glm-kimi-ollama

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct actions (read, write, edit, search, shell, web, media). The AI tools (think, research, agent) have some overlap in reasoning, but their descriptions clearly differentiate: think for step-by-step reasoning, research for codebase analysis, agent for autonomous multi-step execution. One or two pairs (think/research) could be confused if an agent isn't careful.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share a 'kimi_' prefix, providing a strong sense of consistency. However, while many follow verb_noun (read_file, write_file, fetch_url), others are single nouns (glob, grep, shell, agent). This mix of verb and noun forms is a minor inconsistency, though the overall pattern remains readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 14 tools, the server is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a distinct function from file operations to shell, web, media, and AI reasoning, so the count feels appropriately scoped without being overwhelming.
Completeness5/5
The toolset covers a broad range of operations: file read/write/edit/search, shell execution, web search/fetch, media analysis, and AI-based reasoning/review/testing/agentic tasks. There are no obvious dead ends; for example, file deletion can be handled via shell. The surface is comprehensive for a general-purpose assistant.
Average 3.1/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, input requirements, and output behavior. It only names review categories; it does not state that the tool is read-only, whether it can modify code, what the return format is, or how the path/focus arguments affect execution.
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 a single 9-word sentence, front-loaded with its core purpose and free of redundant phrasing. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to under-specification, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context. For a 3-parameter review tool, it omits essential information about return values, side effects, file requirements, and the role of optional parameters, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.
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?
The schema documents 'path' and 'focus' but leaves 'workFolder' undescribed. The description mentions overlapping categories (bugs, security, performance) that may map to the 'focus' parameter, adding marginal value, but it does not clarify workFolder or how focus values are interpreted.
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 identifies the tool's function as code review and names three focus areas (bugs, security, performance). It is distinct from sibling file-read/write/search tools, though it does not explicitly state that it analyzes a specific file path or how results are delivered.
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 about when to choose this tool over siblings like kimi_read_file or kimi_test. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'autonomous agent' without disclosing execution model, potential side effects, permission requirements, or return value. For an agent that may perform arbitrary actions, this opaque lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single sentence and front-loaded with the core identity of the tool, but it is under-specified for a tool of this complexity. While not overly verbose, the brevity omits critical usage and behavioral details, so it earns only an average score for concise structure.
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 that this is an autonomous agent capable of complex multi-step tasks, the description is highly incomplete. With no output schema and no explanation of the agent's behavior, tools used, or edge cases, the description fails to sufficiently contextualize the tool's operation for an AI agent.
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 each parameter having a description (e.g., 'Task description for the agent', 'Timeout in seconds', 'Working directory'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states it is an autonomous agent for complex multi-step tasks, which identifies the tool's general role but lacks a specific verb+resource structure. It does distinguish itself from sibling file/shell/research tools by framing itself as an agent, but the exact actions it performs are not stated.
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 phrase 'complex multi-step tasks' implies that this tool is appropriate when a task requires multiple steps, leaving simpler operations to siblings like kimi_read_file or kimi_shell. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives, so the guidance remains implied rather than directive.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions using the Moonshot vision API, which implies an external network call, but does not disclose whether the image is modified, potential errors, rate limits, or output format. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single sentence with no redundancy, achieving high conciseness. However, it is so brief that it omits critical information, making it not appropriately sized for the tool's needs. It earns points for front-loading the purpose but loses for under-specification.
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?
The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a one-line summary. It lacks usage context, behavior details, and complete parameter semantics, leaving major gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly. Significant additional information is needed.
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?
The schema covers path and prompt with descriptions, but workFolder is undocumented. The description adds no explanation for any parameter, including the ambiguous workFolder, and does not enrich the schema's existing descriptions. With 67% coverage and no description support, the agent lacks full parameter understanding.
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 the specific verb 'Analyze' with the resource 'images', clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like kimi_read_file by specifying media/images and referencing the Moonshot vision API. No ambiguity about what the tool operates on.
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. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with kimi_read_file or other sibling tools. Usage context is only implied by the word 'images'.
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, the description must carry the full burden, but it only mentions the high-level action. It does not disclose whether the tool writes files, requires an existing file, or returns test code, leaving side effects and behavior opaque.
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 a single, waste-free sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately terse, though it omits useful supporting details that could be provided in a structured format.
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 partial schema coverage, the description is too minimal. It omits return values, side effects, and prerequisite conditions, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.
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?
The description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema documents 'path' and 'framework' partially, but 'workFolder' remains unexplained, and the description does not clarify how the parameters relate.
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 tool's function: generating or improving tests for a given source file. It distinguishes itself from sibling file/read/write/research tools by focusing on test creation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like kimi_agent or kimi_review. There are no context cues, exclusions, or prerequisites provided.
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, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden but only says 'Search for regex patterns in files.' It does not mention recursive behavior, output format, default path handling, or relationship between glob and path, leaving critical behavioral aspects undisclosed.
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 one short sentence with zero filler words, front-loaded with the key action and target. It achieves maximum conciseness, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral detail captured in other dimensions.
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?
Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain search scope, result format, and parameter interactions, but none are covered. The one-line description provides only the core purpose, making it insufficient for reliable invocation in complex 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 input schema already describes pattern, glob, and path, covering 75% of parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no additional parameter semantics and leaves workFolder entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'regex patterns in files,' making clear this is a content-grep tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kimi_glob, but the regex-in-files phrasing conveys the core purpose adequately.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kimi_glob for filenames or kimi_shell for system operations. The description only states the basic function and lacks any usage context, exclusions, or recommended scenarios.
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, the description has the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'AI-summarized' outputs but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, prerequisites, or side effects. The safety profile of the tool is entirely unspecified.
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 a single efficient sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. However, it may be too terse given the missing parameter explanations and behavioral context.
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?
The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the return format (beyond 'AI-summarized'), the purpose of 'workFolder', or any usage constraints. Key contextual information is missing for a complete understanding.
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?
The schema describes 'query' and 'max_results', but the description adds no extra meaning for these parameters. The 'workFolder' parameter lacks any schema description and is not explained in the tool description. With only 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 a specific action ('Search the web') and a unique property ('AI-summarized results'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like kimi_fetch_url which fetches a specific URL. The purpose is immediately understandable.
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. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or differences from related tools such as kimi_fetch_url or kimi_research. The user is left to infer when a web search is appropriate.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the 128K context window and lacks any details about side effects, read-only nature, file access behavior beyond the schema, or output format. The schema's workFolder parameter indicates file reading, but the description does not confirm this or explain other behaviors.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a relevant technical detail. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a bit more specification to reach full effectiveness.
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 the tool's complexity (research/analysis over codebases), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how the tool processes the codebase, what kind of answers to expect, whether it can access external resources, or how it uses the context and workFolder parameters. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding whether 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra semantics to the parameters themselves; it only restates the general purpose (analyze/answer questions) which aligns with the 'question' parameter. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema.
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 states the tool analyzes a codebase or answers questions, which is a specific verb+resource combination. The '128K context' adds a distinguishing feature, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kimi_think or kimi_agent.
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 phrase 'using 128K context' implies the tool is suitable for large-context workloads, providing a clear usage context without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. There is no direct 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance, but the context window size serves as an implicit selection criterion.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic operation. It does not disclose whether the search is recursive, whether workFolder is optional, how results are returned, or any error handling behavior (e.g., invalid patterns). This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundant or irrelevant content.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and usage context. It does not state the output format (e.g., list of file paths), whether paths are relative or absolute, or how the workFolder parameter affects search scope. This leaves the agent uncertain about expected outputs.
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%, as both 'pattern' and 'workFolder' have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Find files matching a glob pattern' uses a specific verb 'Find' with a clear resource ('files') and a precise qualifier ('matching a glob pattern'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kimi_grep (which searches file contents) and kimi_read_file (which reads files).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the function without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like kimi_grep or kimi_shell. The usage is only implied by the name and description, but no alternative selection help is given.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that HTML is stripped and text content is returned, but it does not disclose error handling, network requirements, redirects, authentication, rate limits, or what happens for non-HTML content.
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, tightly written sentence that immediately states the action, target, and output format. It contains no filler or redundant information.
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 tool with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks details about error behavior, allowed URL schemes, the meaning of 'workFolder', and any limitations, making it insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.
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 coverage is 50%: the 'url' parameter is documented as 'URL to fetch', but 'workFolder' has no description. The tool description adds no information about the parameters, leaving 'workFolder' ambiguous and failing to compensate for the incomplete 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('a URL') and states the output ('return its text content (HTML stripped)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kimi_read_file (local files) and kimi_web_search (search results).
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 usage when the agent needs the raw text content of a specific URL, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as kimi_web_search or kimi_read_file, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to mention critical traits such as behavior when old_string is not found, whether all occurrences or only the first are replaced, or if the file must already exist. The only behavioral detail provided is 'exact string match', which is minimal.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description fails to explain return values or error behavior. While the schema covers the main parameters, the description leaves gaps about side effects, failure modes, and any prerequisites (e.g., file existence), making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's context.
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 75% (three of four parameters described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, and the workFolder parameter remains undocumented, but the main required parameters are clearly described in 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?
The description clearly states the tool performs a find-and-replace edit in a file with exact string matching. This specific verb+resource+method distinguishes it from sibling tools like kimi_write_file (full file write) and kimi_read_file (read only).
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 use for targeted edits via 'find-and-replace edit' but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of scenarios like 'use for small changes vs. write_file for full rewrites', leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.
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 available, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that the tool performs extended, step-by-step reasoning, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what the output looks like, whether there are side effects, or how the context and workFolder parameters influence the reasoning.
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 with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: 'Extended step-by-step reasoning' specifies the nature, and 'for complex problems' identifies the use case. This is appropriately concise.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it only mentions the reasoning process. It also lacks guidance on how context and workFolder should be used and does not distinguish when to prefer this tool over overlapping siblings like kimi_agent or kimi_research. This leaves important gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema already provides descriptions for two of the three parameters (problem and context), while workFolder lacks a description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it does not enhance the schema's coverage. At 67% coverage, the description is adequate but does not compensate for the undocumented workFolder parameter.
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 states a clear function: 'Extended step-by-step reasoning for complex problems.' It names the target input (complex problems) and the behavior (extended step-by-step reasoning). It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like kimi_agent or kimi_research, so it falls short of a 5.
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 phrase 'for complex problems' implies when the tool should be used, giving some context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implied rather than fully articulated.
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 description discloses the destructive overwrite behavior, which is important, but with no annotations, it leaves significant gaps: no mention of directory creation, permissions, path validation, or return values. The overwrite disclosure is helpful but the description does not fully carry the behavioral transparency burden.
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 with no filler. Every word is meaningful and it is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
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?
For a simple write tool, the description and schema are mostly adequate, but the undocumented 'workFolder' parameter and lack of any behavioral detail beyond overwrite leave gaps. The tool is low-complexity, so this is not severely incomplete, but it is not fully complete.
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?
The schema already describes 'path' and 'content' (67% coverage), but the description adds no semantic value beyond paraphrasing 'content'. The optional 'workFolder' parameter remains undocumented both in schema and description, and the description does not help clarify it.
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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Create or overwrite') and resource ('a file with given content'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like kimi_edit_file by explicitly mentioning overwrite as a core behavior.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like kimi_edit_file, kimi_read_file, and kimi_shell are not referenced, and no usage context or exclusions are provided.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that content is returned up to 'limit lines,' which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not mention error handling, file existence requirements, or permissions. The non-destructive nature is implied but not explicitly stated.
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 extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the main action and a key behavioral constraint. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
For a simple read tool, the description conveys the core operation well, but it leaves gaps: it does not specify the return format, behavior on invalid paths, or the meaning of 'workFolder.' Given no output schema and no annotations, these omissions are noticeable, though not catastrophic for such a straightforward 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 descriptions already cover path, limit, and offset with clear explanations (75% coverage). The description adds marginal value by restating 'up to limit lines,' but it does not clarify the undocumented 'workFolder' parameter or how offset interacts with limit.
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 tool reads a text file and returns its content, using the specific verb 'read' and resource 'text file.' This distinguishes it from siblings like kimi_write_file, kimi_edit_file, and kimi_read_media.
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 usage for reading text files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions (e.g., binary files). The sibling list provides context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.
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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It transparently states what it does (executes shell command) and what it returns (stdout, stderr, exit code), but it does not disclose the arbitrary and potentially destructive nature of shell execution, environment constraints, or side effects. This is a moderate disclosure.
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?
A single, well-formed sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and return values with no filler or redundancy.
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 tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the key behavior and return values. It does not explain timeout behavior or working directory details, but those are adequately described in the schema. Overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
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%, with all three parameters individually described. The tool description adds only the return-value context, not parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 and resource ('Execute a shell command') and immediately distinguishes it from sibling file/research tools. It is unambiguous and specific.
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?
While no explicit alternatives are named, the tool is the only one in the sibling set for running shell commands, so the context is clear. The description adequately implies when to use it, though it does not mention any exclusions or conditions.
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:

[![mcp-glm-kimi-ollama MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sinner12123/mcp-glm-kimi-ollama/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sinner12123/mcp-glm-kimi-ollama)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-glm-kimi-ollama MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sinner12123/mcp-glm-kimi-ollama/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sinner12123/mcp-glm-kimi-ollama)

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/sinner12123/mcp-glm-kimi-ollama'

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