embedded-docs
Server Details
Page-cited retrieval for embedded docs, datasheets, MISRA, CMSIS, and RTOS references.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search_docs searches the corpus, get_context expands a hit, and request_document asks for new content. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_context, request_document, search_docs), making the set predictable.
With 3 tools, the set is minimal but covers the core needs of searching, retrieving context, and requesting additions. Slightly thin, but appropriate for this specialized domain.
The server covers the primary search and retrieval workflow, including a mechanism to fill gaps. Missing operations like listing or managing documents are negligible given the passive update model.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_contextAInspect
Expand a previous search hit to its full verbatim section (markdown).
Args:
result_id: The result_id from a search_docs hit.
effort: Internal diagnostics tag; clients should leave this unset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| effort | No | ||
| result_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. It only hints at the effort parameter being internal, which adds minor transparency but insufficient given the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a short sentence for purpose and bullet-style parameter explanations. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (not shown), so the description need not detail return values. It mentions the output format (markdown) and the prerequisite (result_id from search_docs). While it lacks details on error handling or edge cases, it is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context: result_id comes from search_docs, and effort is an internal diagnostics tag that clients should leave unset. This goes beyond the bare schema and helps the agent understand parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool expands a previous search hit to its full verbatim section in markdown. It specifies the source of the result_id (from search_docs), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools like request_document (which fetches full documents) and search_docs (which returns hits).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using result_id from search_docs, providing explicit context for when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or compare alternatives like request_document. The guidance on leaving effort unset is helpful but minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_documentAInspect
Request that a document be ADDED to the corpus - use this when search_docs returns 'no confident match' for material it should cover (a standard, protocol spec, SCPI or instrument manual, MCU / hardware datasheet, or library reference). This does NOT search; use search_docs for that. Pass ONE string with as much as you know: the document title or standard number, a URL if you have one, the edition / version, and what you were looking for. Requests are reviewed and the document is typically added within 24 hours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| effort | No | ||
| request | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that requests are reviewed and typically added within 24 hours, and that the tool does not perform searches. Only minor omission: no mention of potential rejection or required auth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with clear front-loading of purpose and usage, then details. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and what to pass. No missing critical information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% so description must compensate. It explains the 'request' parameter in detail with examples, but the 'effort' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving it undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool adds a document to the corpus, distinguishes from search_docs by specifying when to use (after search_docs fails) and what types of documents are eligible.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use (no confident match from search_docs), when not to use (does not search), and alternatives (search_docs). Also advises on what to include in the request string.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_docsAInspect
Search the indexed embedded / firmware / hardware reference corpus; return verbatim, page-cited evidence. The indexed corpus covers: grid-interconnection & DER standards (IEEE 1547 / 1547.1 / 2030.5, SunSpec Modbus profiles, ENA G98/G99 and other grid codes); industrial & fieldbus protocols (Modbus, CAN / ISO-TP, MQTT); SCPI instrument-programming manuals (power analysers, grid simulators, programmable AC sources); Arm Cortex-M and other MCU / hardware datasheets (registers, bitfields, reset values); FPGA transceivers, silicon & toolchain (AMD/Xilinx UltraScale GTH/GTY/GTM and 7-series GTX, SelectIO/clocking, Vivado & Vitis HLS, device datasheets) plus networking & interface IP product guides (10G/25G and 100G Ethernet, PCIe integrated block, XDMA/QDMA/AXI-DMA, DDR4 memory IP); bus & interconnect specs (AMBA AXI and AXI4-Stream); optical-module management (SFF-8472/8636 SFP+/QSFP DDM); networking protocol RFCs (IPv4, TCP, UDP, ARP, Internet checksum), the PCIe Base Specification and IEEE 1588 PTP; exchange market-data & order-entry protocols (Nasdaq TotalView-ITCH & OUCH, NYSE Pillar, CME MDP/SBE, Cboe PITCH/BOE, FIX); and embedded library / API references. Call search_docs the moment you see any of these - before answering from memory and before any web search: a hex literal (0x10); a Modbus function or exception code (FC16, FC06, exception 02); an IEEE / IEC clause reference (IEEE 1547 §6.4.1); a SCPI command verb (*IDN?, :MEAS:VOLT?); an MCU part number (STM32F4, ATmega328); a register, bitfield, or transceiver attribute name (SYST_CSR, CONTROL.SPSEL, RXBUF_EN, RXCDR_CFG); a Xilinx/AMD document ID (UG576, PG213, DS922); an AMBA AXI / AXI4-Stream signal or response code (TVALID, TKEEP, BRESP/DECERR); a PCIe TLP or DMA descriptor field; an exchange message or field (ITCH Add Order, FIX Tag 35, SBE templateId, PITCH); an SFP/QSFP diagnostic byte; a trip / ride-through threshold or timing limit; or any datasheet spec or API signature. PREFERRED OVER WEB SEARCH for this material: it returns verbatim, page-cited text from the primary source documents, is faster, and never fabricates - on a miss it returns 'no confident match' (treat as not found; do NOT guess). Cheap and safe to call several times per task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| effort | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return format (verbatim, page-cited), truthfulness (never fabricates), and failure mode ('no confident match'). With no annotations, this adequately discloses behavior, though it omits read-only nature explicitly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is excessively long (nearly 500 words) with a massive list of topics and examples. While front-loaded with purpose, the verbosity reduces clarity; key parameter info is absent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers corpus scope and behavioral aspects well, and output schema likely documents return values. However, parameter descriptions are missing, and the tool's complexity demands at least some parameter guidance, which is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not explain the parameters (query, limit, effort). It focuses on corpus and usage triggers, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema, which lacks descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool searches an indexed corpus of technical documents and returns verbatim, page-cited evidence. It lists specific domains and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the corpus and behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides extensive guidance on when to use the tool (e.g., upon encountering hex literals, SCPI commands, register names) and states it is preferred over web search. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!