skill-vault

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: search, fetch, publish, update, delete, and two separate list scopes. The only potential overlap is between search_skills and get_skill, but search returns relevant results while get returns full content by id. No tool ambiguously duplicates another.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: delete_skill, search_skills, get_skill, publish_skill, update_skill, list_my_skills, list_global_skills. The pluralization correctly reflects whether the tool returns multiple items or operates on one.
Tool Count5/5
With exactly 7 tools, the set covers the core operations for a skill vault without being bloated or sparse. Each tool earns its place in the lifecycle (create, read, update, delete, search, list). This is a well-scoped collection for the server's purpose.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides complete CRUD coverage: publish (create), get and list (read), update (update), and delete (delete). Additionally, search and the differentiation between personal and global lists round out the expected workflows for a vault. No missing operations that would force agents to work around gaps.
Average 3.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 60 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 5, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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 carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, what happens to child resources (e.g., agent_key), or any side effects. The description is too sparse to inform the agent of consequences.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It avoids verbosity but fails to include critical information, making it more terse than genuinely concise. The sentence is simple and clear, yet lacks substance.
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 has two parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to address deletion side effects, when to use the tool, or what the output entails. A mutation tool with ownership constraints needs more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 mention either parameter (id, agent_key). While 'id' is self-explanatory, 'agent_key' is ambiguous and undocumented. The description adds no value in explaining parameter meaning or relationships.
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 action (delete), the resource (a skill), and the ownership requirement (you own). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like update_skill or list_my_skills.
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, when not to use it, or any prerequisites beyond ownership. The 'you own' phrase implies a condition but does not elaborate on permissions, irreversibility, or 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 carries full behavioral burden but only states 'semantic search' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, whether it requires authentication, or what the response structure is. It does not mention any side effects or limitations.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core function immediately. Every word contributes meaning.
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 5 parameters and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits parameter behavior, scoping options, and return details, making it incomplete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema has 5 parameters and 0% schema-description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains 'natural-language query' for the query param, leaving limit, scope, agent_key, and min_trust entirely unexplained.
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 ('search') and resource ('skills'), and clarifies that it performs semantic, natural-language-based search, which distinguishes it from exact-match tools like get_skill and listing tools like list_global_skills.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_my_skills or get_skill, and does not mention exclusions or use cases. The verb 'search' implies one usage, but no contrasts or alternatives are named.
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 are provided, so the description must carry the burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose details such as output format, pagination, or the role of the agent_key parameter. It is minimal but not misleading.
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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It earns its place, though it is arguably too terse and sacrifices valuable context for brevity.
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 tool with an optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any explanation of the agent_key parameter and does not mention the alternative global list, leaving notable gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the agent_key parameter at all. The agent receives no semantic help for this parameter beyond its name, which is ambiguous.
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 action ('List') and the specific resource ('skills in your personal vault'). It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_global_skills by emphasizing 'personal'.
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 'personal vault' implies usage for one's own skills, and the sibling list_global_skills suggests an alternative. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.
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 full behavioral burden, but it only states the action and scope. It does not disclose whether an existing skill is overwritten, what permissions are required, or any side effects of publishing (e.g., making a global skill visible to all).
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and key information, containing no filler or redundant phrases.
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 description is minimal for a tool with a required nested object and no annotations. It omits critical context such as whether publishing is additive or overwrites, how visibility interacts with agent_key, and what the output schema (response) represents, making it incomplete 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 input schema has a nested skill object and 3 parameters, but the description provides no parameter-level guidance beyond hinting at 'global or personal' (visibility). With 0% schema_description_coverage, this leaves the agent to guess the meaning of agent_key, meta, tags, triggers, and the required body/description fields.
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 ('publish') and resource ('skill') with a location ('vault') and scope ('global or personal'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling operations like update_skill, delete_skill, and search_skills.
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 states the action (publish new skill) and the scope options (global/personal), implying this is the tool for creating a new skill rather than updating or deleting. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
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 burden. It communicates a read-only operation via 'Fetch' and that it returns 'full content', but it does not disclose behavior around missing IDs, version semantics (integer vs version ID), or the role of agent_key. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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. It communicates the core action in 12 words, making it easy for an agent to parse.
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 minimal but adequate for a simple get tool; however, it leaves significant gaps around the optional parameters (especially agent_key) and how this tool relates to search_skills and listing tools. The output schema exists, so return format is not required, but the parameter semantics gap hurts overall completeness.
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 clarify parameters. It explains 'id' and 'version' indirectly, but omits 'agent_key' entirely and uses the phrase 'version id' which conflicts with the schema's integer 'version' type. The description does not add enough meaning beyond the bare schema names.
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 'the full content of a skill' and identifies key identifiers ('id or version id'). This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_skill, search_skills, and update_skill, which focus on different actions.
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?
It implies usage when the agent already has a skill ID or version ID and needs the full content, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_skills or list_* tools, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria or alternatives.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that updating a skill creates a new version (rather than overwriting in place), and that ownership is a prerequisite. This is meaningful behavior disclosure, though it does not mention side effects like old version retention or permission details.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb 'Update' and includes a parenthetical clarification about versioning. Every word adds value.
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 a nested skill object with multiple required and optional fields, plus an agent_key parameter, yet the description is minimal and provides no guidance on how to structure the update. With no annotations and low parameter transparency, the description is insufficient for an agent to safely and correctly invoke this tool without additional schema exploration.
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 should compensate by explaining parameters. It barely does: 'existing skill you own' implies 'id' identifies the skill and 'skill' contains the update, but it does not explain the nested fields (name, description, body, meta, tags, triggers) or the 'agent_key' parameter. Most parameter meaning is left to the schema, which has no descriptions.
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 action ('Update'), the resource ('an existing skill'), and the scope ('you own'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_skill, get_skill, and publish_skill. It also adds the specific behavior of creating a new version, which clarifies the update semantics.
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 provides clear context that this tool is for updating skills owned by the user, which implies it is not for creating new skills or modifying others' skills. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the ownership qualifier and the update verb make the usage context clear.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior, which is useful, but it does not mention additional behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, sort ordering, or whether only published skills are included. The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
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 immediately states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 simplicity of the tool (two optional parameters, an output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It identifies the resource and pagination. However, it could be more complete by explicitly distinguishing from search_skills and noting any default behavior, but it is sufficient for a basic listing 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'pagination,' which adds meaning to the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters by indicating their role. However, it does not explicitly define these parameters or their syntax, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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 purpose: to browse the global (public) skill store with pagination. It uses a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('global skill store'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_my_skills'. The term 'global (public)' differentiates it from personal skill lists.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to browse the public skill store, with pagination. It implies a distinction from search_skills (browse vs. search) and list_my_skills (global vs. personal), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. This constitutes clear context without explicit exclusions.
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:

[![skill-vault MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vikasudasi/skill-vault/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vikasudasi/skill-vault)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![skill-vault MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vikasudasi/skill-vault/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vikasudasi/skill-vault)

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/vikasudasi/skill-vault'

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