Skip to main content
Glama
supavec

Supavec MCP Server

by supavec
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one fetches embeddings for a specific file, while the other lists all user files. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these operations, making it clear when to use each tool.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use a verb_noun pattern (fetch-embeddings, list-user-files), which is consistent and readable. The minor deviation is the use of hyphens instead of underscores, but this is a consistent stylistic choice across both tools.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a Supavec MCP Server, which likely involves file and embedding management. Key operations like uploading files, deleting files, or managing embeddings beyond fetching are missing, making the scope incomplete.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for file and embedding management. There are no tools for uploading files, deleting files, updating embeddings, or other CRUD operations, leaving significant gaps that will hinder agent workflows in this domain.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches embeddings but doesn't describe what 'embeddings' are in this context, how they are returned, any rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

    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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

    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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'embeddings' are, how they are structured, or what the return values look like, which is crucial for a tool with undefined outputs and behavioral traits. The description should provide more context to compensate for the lack of structured data.

    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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('file_id' and 'query'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage examples, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the action ('fetch embeddings') and the target resource ('for a file by ID and query'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list-user-files', which appears to list files rather than fetch embeddings, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'list-user-files', or any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. It merely restates the basic functionality without usage context.

    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 states this is a list operation but doesn't mention whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context for a tool that presumably accesses user data.

    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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and gets straight to the point.

    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 list operation with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations, it should ideally mention authentication requirements, return format, or pagination behavior. The description is adequate but has clear gaps given the tool's data access nature.

    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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the action ('List all files') and resource ('uploaded to Supavec for the current user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'fetch-embeddings', which appears to be a different operation rather than a direct alternative for listing 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'fetch-embeddings' or any other context for selection. The only implied usage is for listing user files, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance.

    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-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server 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/supavec/mcp-server'

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