local-Rag

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.15.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: ingestion (file vs data), deletion, listing, querying, context expansion, and status. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., delete_file, ingest_data). 'status' is a single word but consistent with the style.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools cover the essential operations for a local RAG system: ingestion, deletion, listing, querying, context expansion, and status. Well-scoped.
Completeness4/5
Covers core workflow (ingest, query, get context, delete). Minor gaps like missing metadata retrieval or per-document chunk listing, but re-ingestion updates content.
Average 4.2/5 across 7 of 7 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description shoulders the burden. It states deletion occurs but does not disclose whether it is permanent, what permissions are required, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter guidance. No extraneous 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?
For a simple deletion tool with no output schema and low complexity, the description covers the essential usage. It could specify the return behavior or prerequisites, but it is reasonably complete given the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions and examples for both parameters. The description adds minimal value by restating the schema's guidance on when to use each parameter, warranting a baseline score.
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 the specific verb 'delete' and identifies the resource as 'previously ingested file or data from the vector database.' It also distinguishes between filePath and source parameters, clarifying the scope versus sibling tools like ingest_file and ingest_data.
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 explains when to use filePath vs source and that one must be provided. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like list_files or query_documents.
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 fully convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe. Does not mention rate limits, authorization, or whether it requires special permissions. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that conveys the purpose and output concisely. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded.
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 no output schema, the description provides a list of returned properties (documents, chunks, size, config). It does not detail the structure or format of the response, but for a simple status tool this is likely sufficient. It could be more complete by specifying the response type (e.g., JSON object).
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?
There are no parameters, so the description carries no parameter information. However, the description adds meaning by specifying what the tool returns (total documents, total chunks, etc.), which goes beyond the empty schema. With 0 parameters, the baseline is high, and the description meets it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves system status and lists specific information types (documents, chunks, database size, configuration). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_file or 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not indicate that it's read-only, or that it might be called before other operations. Sibling tools imply other actions, but no explicit comparisons are given.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses core behavior (ingest, update via re-ingestion) but does not mention side effects, error cases, or authorization needs.
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 concise sentences covering purpose, constraint, and feature. No redundancy or irrelevant details.
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?
Adequate given lack of output schema and annotations. Explains core function, supported formats, and re-ingestion. Missing return value or success indicator, but acceptable for a simple ingestion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no detail beyond the schema for parameters, only reiterating absolute path requirement.
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 ingests specific document types (PDF, DOCX, TXT, MD) into a vector database for semantic search. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ingest_data' by focusing on file ingestion.
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 clear context (ingest for semantic search), required parameter constraints (absolute path), and a key feature (re-ingestion). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.
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 does a good job explaining what the tool does (read-only listing). It does not mention side effects, permissions, or performance, but for a simple list operation these may not be required. The description is transparent about the scope (BASE_DIR files and other ingested items).
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, front-loaded with the primary action, and no wasted words. Every sentence adds distinct 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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to call this tool. It covers the tool's scope (files and other ingested items) but does not specify return format or pagination. Still, it is complete enough for a straightforward list tool.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially high (100%). The description adds value by explaining what is listed, which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 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 lists files in BASE_DIR with specific extensions and shows ingestion status. It also lists other ingested items outside BASE_DIR. This is a specific verb (list) and resource (files and ingested items), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_file or ingest_file.
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 provides context for when to use (checking files and ingestion status) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention sibling alternatives. It lacks exclusions or comparisons, so the agent must infer usage boundaries.
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?
In the absence of annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: exact keyword matching, semantic vector search, and score interpretation (0 = most relevant). It also advises on query refinement, leaving no ambiguity about how the tool operates.
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 long, front-loading the primary purpose, then efficiently explaining the search mechanism and result scoring. Every sentence adds value; no extraneous content.
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?
The description covers essential aspects: what the tool does, how it searches, and result scoring. With no output schema, it could mention potential response structure but is still sufficiently complete for a search tool with limited parameters.
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%, providing detailed descriptions for both query and limit. The tool description echoes the schema's guidance on query but adds no new parameter-specific information. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Search ingested documents', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_file and ingest_data by focusing on searching. The additional detail about keyword and vector search further clarifies its functionality.
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 gives implicit guidance on query formulation (preserve specific terms, add context) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use scenarios. With sibling tools listed but not referenced, the guidance is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals that re-ingestion with the same source identifier updates existing content, but does not disclose other behaviors like first-creation effect, error states, or required permissions.
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 that efficiently convey purpose, usage, and a key nuance (re-ingestion). Front-loaded with the main distinction from file ingestion.
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?
Lacks description of return value or outcome, which is notable given no output schema. However, the description is sufficient for a simple ingestion task and includes essential details for correct 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?
Schema coverage is 50% but all parameters have descriptions in schema. Description adds value by explaining re-ingestion behavior and giving concrete examples for source identifier format, which enriches the meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool ingests content as a string, not from a file, and gives specific use cases (fetched web pages, copied text, markdown strings). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'ingest_file' by specifying files are not allowed.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool (for strings with format text, html, or markdown) and when not (for files on disk, use ingest_file instead). Provides clear guidance on source identifier format for re-ingestion.
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?
No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden. Discloses return format (target with isTarget: true plus neighbors sorted ascending), edge-case behavior (window clamped to existing chunks, chunkIndex beyond returns empty result), and parameter defaults/ranges (before/after defaults 2, max 50). No contradictions.
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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by technical details. It is moderately long but every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy: 'Provide exactly one of filePath or source' is stated twice (once in schema description and once in tool description), which is acceptable. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is clear.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: input sources, parameter relationships, default behavior, edge cases (empty result), and return structure. No gaps identified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning: explains that filePath and source are mutually exclusive, that chunkIndex comes from query_documents result, and that before/after have defaults and maximums. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Expand a query_documents result by reading the chunks immediately before and after it in the same document.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like query_documents (which returns hits) and ingest_file/ingest_data (which add documents). The tool is uniquely for getting neighboring context.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the hit needs more surrounding context – for example, a definition without its example, or a conclusion without its reasoning.' It also specifies how to pass parameters (chunkIndex from query_documents result, filePath from ingest_file or source from ingest_data) and gives constraints (defaults before=2, after=2, max 50 each, provide exactly one of filePath or source).
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:

[![local-Rag MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zongzi-zongzhi/local-Rag/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zongzi-zongzhi/local-Rag)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![local-Rag MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zongzi-zongzhi/local-Rag/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zongzi-zongzhi/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/zongzi-zongzhi/local-Rag'

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