mcp-local-rag

by xiuxiansk

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.17.3
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, non-overlapping purpose: status, query, two ingestion methods differentiated by source type, delete, list, context reading, and sync start/status. Even the two ingest tools are unambiguous due to explicit input-type distinction.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (query_documents, ingest_file, delete_file, list_files, read_chunk_neighbors, sync_start, sync_status). The lone 'status' tool deviates slightly by being a bare noun rather than a verb action, but the overall naming is predictable and consistent.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a local RAG system. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function: ingestion (file and data), querying, context exploration, deletion, listing, status, and synchronization, with no unnecessary bloat.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: ingestion (create), querying (read), deletion (delete), and updating via re-ingestion or synchronization. Additional utilities like status, list_files, and read_chunk_neighbors fill out the surface for effective RAG management, leaving no obvious gaps.
Average 4.2/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the output fields and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or any operational conditions. The field list adds context, but some behavioral aspects remain implicit.
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 that immediately states the tool's purpose and then lists the output fields in a structured way. There is no redundancy or wasted words.
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 simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values and purpose. It does not mention potential delays or whether the status is a snapshot, but for its simplicity, the information provided is sufficient for basic 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 tool has no parameters and an empty input schema, so parameter semantics are not needed. The description adds value by enumerating the output fields, which helps the agent understand what to expect, thus justifying a baseline score of 4.
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 (Get) and resource (index status), and the listed field names specify exactly what the tool returns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_documents or sync_status, which have different purposes.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sync_status, which may also report on index state. There is no mention of exclusions or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
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 burden. It discloses the return shape and re-ingestion behavior ('source identifier enables re-ingestion to update existing content'), which gives insight into idempotency/update semantics. However, it doesn't mention whether ingestion is destructive, how conflicts are handled, or any side effects beyond the return value.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no filler. The alternative reference and return type are included efficiently.
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 simplicity, the description covers the core purpose, sibling distinction, and return value. It doesn't discuss error cases or operational prerequisites, but the schema fills in parameter details. It is adequately complete for an ingestion tool with no annotations or output schema.
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 50%, but the description adds meaning to the 'source' parameter by explaining its role in re-ingestion. It also confirms 'content' is a string. The nested metadata format options are already well-described in the schema, so the description provides marginal added value.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Ingest in-memory content as a string', immediately distinguishing it from 'ingest_file' for disk files. It clearly states what the tool does and the scope (in-memory content).
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?
Explicitly names an alternative tool ('use ingest_file for files on disk') and implies this tool is for in-memory strings. It gives a clear when-to-use vs. alternative, though it doesn't cover all sibling tools.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by explaining the score semantics (0 = best, higher = worse) and the special 'source' field for ingest_data items. It does not mention side effects, but 'search' inherently implies a read-only operation.
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 exactly two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second details the return structure. 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.
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 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate. It explains the return format and score meaning, while the schema covers parameter semantics. It does not mention pagination, but the limit parameter implicitly addresses that.
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 schema already documents all parameters comprehensively. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond implying the query benefits from both keyword and semantic matching. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('Search ingested documents') with a distinctive approach ('hybrid keyword + semantic matching'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_files or read_chunk_neighbors. It also lists return fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 the tool is for searching documents but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No pruning or exclusions are given, leaving usage context solely to the user's judgment.
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?
Without annotations, description discloses important behavior: overwrites existing data on re-ingest, and lists return fields. This goes beyond the schema by revealing the destructive replacement semantics.
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?
Two sentences convey purpose, constraints, and return format without waste. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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 three params and no output schema, the description covers return value and replacement behavior. Could mention when to prefer this over ingest_data, but overall sufficient.
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 already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add. It does reiterate absolute path but adds no new semantics beyond 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 action (ingest), the resource (document file into vector database), and supported formats (PDF, DOCX, TXT, MD), which distinguishes it from siblings like ingest_data and query_documents.
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?
Provides context: absolute path required and re-ingesting replaces existing data. Does not explicitly mention when to use vs alternatives like ingest_data, so not a 5.
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 full burden. It discloses the return structure ({ baseDirs, files, sources }), explains that sources lists non-file ingested items, and the scope parameter details behavior for relative/out-of-base prefixes. It does not explicitly state read-only intent or mention recursion depth/sorting, but for a list tool the essentials are covered. Edge cases for scope are thoroughly disclosed.
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 sentences: first states the core function and return object, second clarifies what 'sources' contains. No filler, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. The parameter schema is detailed but that is separate. The main description earns its place.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description explains the return object and the meaning of sources. The scope parameter covers traversal/filtering behavior. It could additionally disclose recursion depth or permission requirements, but these are less critical for a read-only list operation. Overall, sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter 'scope', and its description is detailed (absolute path, prefix matching, union for arrays, behavior for relative/out-of-base). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema. Per guidelines, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, which is appropriate.
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 what the tool does: 'List supported files (PDF, DOCX, TXT, MD) under the configured base directories and whether each is ingested.' This is a specific verb+resource combination with scope (supported extensions, base directories, ingestion status). It distinguishes from siblings: query_documents and status focus on querying, ingest_* on adding content, delete_file on removal. The tool is unambiguously the file-listing utility.
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: use this when you need to see files and their ingestion status, and it notes that sources include non-file ingest_data content (web pages, clipboard). The scope parameter description adds clear guidance about absolute path prefixes and how to interpret empty results (compare against baseDirs). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as query_documents or status, nor 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (deleted, removedChunks, existed) and clarifies that 'existed' indicates whether anything was present. This goes beyond vague 'delete' statements by explaining outcome semantics. It doesn't mention irreversibility or auth, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then logically explains parameter selection, and ends with return values. Each sentence contributes new information without 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, the description covers the essential aspects: what it deletes, how to specify the target, and what the response indicates. It doesn't mention error cases for both parameters provided, but the 'existed' flag mitigates missing-file uncertainty. The lack of an output schema makes the return explanation valuable.
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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by mapping parameters to ingestion methods (filePath for ingest_file, source for ingest_data) and enforcing the 'either/or' constraint, which is absent from the schema's optional flags.
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: 'Delete a previously ingested file or data from the vector database.' It specifies the verb (delete), the resource (previously ingested files/data), and distinguishes from sibling tools like ingest_file and ingest_data by focusing on the removal operation.
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 on when to use this tool: for previously ingested items only, and gives explicit guidance on choosing filePath vs. source based on how the data was ingested. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the coverage is strong for a delete operation.
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 full burden. It clearly states the return shape (jobId, state, total, completed, summary, warnings, error) and explains null/unknown meanings. It does not mention side effects, but 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and no side effects are likely. The level of detail is strong for a status 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 longer than a typical one-liner, but it is dense and structured with the return object in braces, using spaces and parentheses for clarity. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly trimmed without loss. It is front-loaded with the core action.
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 single-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It details all possible state values, null semantics, and the meaning of an unknown jobId. There is no obvious missing behavior; the tool's functionality is fully described.
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 schema covers jobId with 'Identifier returned by sync_start.' The description adds meaning by explaining that an unknown jobId indicates replacement/loss, and by showing jobId in the return structure. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter comment.
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 starts with 'Get the current or latest sync job record' — a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like sync_start (which creates a job) and status (which likely relates to something else) by focusing on sync job state retrieval.
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 the intended context: to poll or inspect a previously started sync job. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the mention of 'unknown jobId means the job was replaced by a newer one or lost with a previous server process' gives practical guidance on interpreting results, which helps decide when this tool is useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: asynchronous execution (returns { jobId } without waiting), polling via sync_status, job retention (only one job kept), and loss on server exit. It also explains impact on unchanged and missing files. This goes well beyond basic safety hints.
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?
Three sentences, no fluff, all information is relevant and front-loaded. It efficiently covers purpose, async behavior, job lifecycle, and parameter scoping in a compact form.
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?
The description is complete for a tool of this complexity: it explains the return value, polling mechanism, job limitation, and optional path semantics. No output schema exists, so return-value explanation is sufficient. It covers all critical operational aspects.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, including optionality, base directory behavior, and scoping rules. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: 'Reconcile the index with the files on disk' with specific actions (ingest new/changed, leave unchanged, remove gone). This distinguishes it from siblings like ingest_file (single file ingest) and delete_file, and it explicitly notes the async jobId return and polling via sync_status.
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 when to use it: to reconcile the index with disk, with optional path scoping. It provides context on behavior (leaves unchanged files alone) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use ingest_file for a single file). Still, context is clear and useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (target chunk with isTarget: true, neighbors ascending), out-of-range behavior (returns []), defaults (before=2, after=2), maximums (50 each), and the constraint to provide exactly one of filePath or source. This is comprehensive for a read-only operation.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence carries essential information: what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, edge-case behavior, and defaults. No filler or redundancy.
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?
Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all critical operational aspects: parameter selection, return semantics, ordering, error handling, and defaults. It's sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in context, and no additional information seems necessary.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain chunkIndex ('from the result'), reinforcing the 'exactly one of filePath or source' constraint, and restating defaults and max limits. This goes a bit beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions, earning a 4.
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 verb ('Read') and resource ('the chunks immediately before and after a query_documents result'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by being explicitly tied to query_documents results. It's not a search or ingestion tool, but a context-expansion read operation.
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 gives clear context for use: after a query_documents result, pass chunkIndex plus exactly one of filePath or source. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough that usage is unambiguous. A minor gap is not stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when query_documents already provides enough context), but the instructions are practical.
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-local-rag MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiuxiansk/mcp-local-rag/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiuxiansk/mcp-local-rag)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-local-rag MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiuxiansk/mcp-local-rag/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiuxiansk/mcp-local-rag)

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/xiuxiansk/mcp-local-rag'

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