agent-knowledge

by yucx-go

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.3.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: querying, ingesting text, ingesting UMSF documents, stats, dreaming, hook operations, and hook stats. The two ingest tools are differentiated by input type and use case, and the hook tools are a cohesive subset with clear roles.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the 'ak_' prefix and use snake_case, but patterns vary slightly: some are action-only (query, ingest, stats, dream), while others include a context prefix (ingest_umsf, hook_fire, hook_list, hook_stats). This is readable and predictable, with minor inconsistency in noun/verb ordering.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a knowledge vault server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect—query, ingestion, usage stats, memory consolidation, and hook management—without unnecessary bloat or missing core functionality.
Completeness4/5
The core knowledge vault operations (ingest, query, stats, dream) are covered, plus real-time hook management. Minor gaps include lack of explicit source deletion or listing, but these are not essential for the stated purpose and can be worked around.
Average 3.5/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
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
- Last stable release on May 16, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool extracts claims and entities, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, appends or replaces data, requires specific permissions, or returns any acknowledgment. The lack of such context for a mutating tool 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately state the primary purpose and a key behavioral outcome. There is no redundant or filler 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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides minimal context. It omits return values, any side effects, and notably does not explain how it differs from the sibling 'ak_ingest_umsf'. Given the moderately complex operation of ingesting various source types, the description is insufficient for an agent to use it reliably in all contexts.
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?
Since the schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (text, title, source_type), the description is not required to add parameter details. It adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, but the schema already covers all parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Ingest text into the knowledge vault') and an added behavior ('Extracts claims and entities'), using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling 'ak_ingest_umsf', leaving ambiguity about which ingest variant to use.
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 simply states what it does, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparison to the sibling ingest tool. This leaves the agent without decision criteria for selection.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return format, potential side effects, or any other behavioral traits. It offers minimal transparency beyond the basic 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 a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, and every word earns its place.
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 is incomplete. It does not explain what statistics are returned, the time range, or any filtering options, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.
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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate since no information is missing.
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 'Get hook fire statistics' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like ak_hook_fire and ak_hook_list by focusing on statistics rather than actions or listing. However, it is minimal and could be more explicit about what 'hook fire statistics' entails.
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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this over ak_stats or other sibling tools.
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. It says 'Run' implies a state-changing action, but lacks details on side effects, prerequisites, idempotency, or what the result is. The '(memory consolidation)' gives some context but not enough.
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 efficiently conveys the core action and scope. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details about the outcome of running a dream cycle, any prerequisites (e.g., having ingested sources), or expected return values. The schema covers the parameter, but behavioral completeness is missing.
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 covers 100% of the parameter (since_hours) with a clear description and default. The phrase 'recent sources' in the tool description loosely maps to this parameter, reinforcing it but adding no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'dream cycle' with an explanatory parenthetical '(memory consolidation)'. It distinguishes from siblings like ak_query and ak_ingest by describing a unique operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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?
Usage context is implied by mentioning 'recent sources', suggesting it pairs with ingesting data, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't provide exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.
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. It only says 'search', which implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention return format, ranking, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency.
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, clear sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, containing only the essential information.
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 tool is simple with well-documented parameters, but there is no output schema, and the description does not describe what the search returns or how results are presented. This is a noticeable gap for a query tool, though the core functionality is clear.
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 documents both parameters ('query' and 'top_k') with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.
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 ('Search') and the resource ('the knowledge vault'), making it specific and distinct from sibling tools like ak_ingest and ak_stats. It unambiguously conveys the tool's purpose.
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, nor any explicit exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without contextual usage direction.
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 carries full responsibility. It only says 'Get,' vaguely implying read-only, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or the full scope of statistics returned.
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 concrete examples. It is appropriately sized and contains no unnecessary information.
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?
With no output schema, the description must explain return values. It partially does so with 'source count, entity count, etc.,' but the 'etc.' is vague and leaves the full set of statistics unspecified.
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 zero parameters, and the schema already documents this. With an empty schema (100% coverage), the description has no need to explain parameters, earning the 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 tool's purpose using the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'vault statistics' with concrete examples ('source count, entity count'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ak_query and ak_hook_stats.
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 exclusions or differentiate from ak_hook_stats or ak_query.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It accurately indicates a non-destructive 'list' operation and clarifies scope ('all' hooks), but it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or whether hooks are returned in a particular order. For a simple read-only operation, this is adequate but 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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It states the action and resource clearly without any superfluous information.
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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the core purpose and implies the return value (a list of hooks). However, it does not specify the format of the returned data or any relevant details about hook attributes, which would require an output schema or additional explanation.
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 zero parameters and the schema is empty, making description of parameters unnecessary. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing schema information because there is nothing to document.
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 'List all registered hooks' uses a specific verb (list) and a specific resource (registered hooks), making the purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like ak_hook_fire and ak_hook_stats by implying enumeration rather than execution or statistics.
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 does not mention that this is the appropriate tool for simply viewing hooks, nor does it exclude cases where ak_hook_stats might be more useful. The only context is the name and sibling names, which are not explicitly referenced in the description.
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 full burden. It discloses that events are fanned out to hooks and the document is rendered into a single Source, which is useful. However, it omits details about auth, rate limits, error handling, or reversibility, leaving a partial behavioral picture.
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 clearly state the action, purpose, and behavior without filler. Front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and every sentence adds value.
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?
With one well-documented parameter and a clear behavioral description, the tool is mostly complete for its purpose. It could mention return values or error conditions, but the fan-out and rendering behavior is disclosed, making it sufficient for typical use.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'complete' and 'multi-event' context but does not substantially expand beyond the schema's 'UMSFDocument as a JSON-serializable dict'. The mention of the pipeline adds some meaning, but the schema already provides the core.
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 ingests a complete UMSFDocument and specifies it is for multi-event submissions. It distinguishes from siblings like ak_ingest by emphasizing the 'complete document' vs. likely single events, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 explicitly says to use this for multi-event submissions (full conversations, tool traces, etc.), providing clear context. It does not state when not to use it or name specific alternative tools, but the intent is evident.
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the event is wrapped in a one-event UMSFDocument and dispatched through the hook system, offering useful internal context. However, it does not mention return values, error handling, or asynchronous execution, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.
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: the first states the action and purpose, the second provides an alternative. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant information.
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 11-parameter schema with complete coverage and the clear alternative to a sibling tool, the description is largely complete. It lacks an example or notes on response behavior, but the essential context for selection and invocation is present.
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 covers all 11 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but its focus on 'single event' aligns with the schema's type field and does not conflict.
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 ('Fire a single UMSF event') with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool ak_ingest_umsf by emphasizing single vs multi-event submissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: use this for a single event and use ak_ingest_umsf for multi-event submissions, naming the alternative tool and the condition under which it should be used.
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:

[![agent-knowledge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yucx-go/agent-knowledge/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yucx-go/agent-knowledge)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![agent-knowledge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yucx-go/agent-knowledge/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yucx-go/agent-knowledge)

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/yucx-go/agent-knowledge'

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