F
license-
qualityC
maintenanceSearch and read Kakao Developers REST API documentation through the MCP protocol.
MintMCP Docs
by com.mintmcp
Server Details
Search and read the official MintMCP documentation, the enterprise MCP gateway.
- 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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: two fetch variants (by id vs by URL), one for listing the table of contents, and one for searching. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use lowercase verb_noun pattern (fetch, get_page, list_docs, search), consistent and predictable.
Tool Count4/5
Four tools is on the minimal side but provides essential documentation operations: search, list, and two fetch methods. Slightly more could be added (e.g., get categories) but the set is not insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the main use cases: discovering docs, searching, and retrieving content. No major gaps, though a tool to list only categories or tags could enhance exploration.
Available Tools
4 toolsfetchFetch a MintMCP docs pageARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch the full markdown content of a MintMCP documentation page by its id. Use it after search (or list_docs) to read a page in full before answering, for example the Snowflake connector setup, the SCIM provisioning guide, or the tool governance reference. If you have a public docs URL or a slug instead of a search-result id, use get_page.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The document id returned by search or list_docs. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| url | Yes | |
| text | Yes | |
| title | Yes | |
| metadata | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent. Description adds that it returns 'full markdown content', specifying output format beyond annotations. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff, main action first. Efficient.
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?
Covers input source and output format. With output schema present, no need for return value details. Could mention errors or rate limits, but adequate for simple tool.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage. Description adds meaning by stating the id comes from search or list_docs, which is not in 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 it fetches markdown content by document id, with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning get_page for alternative input types.
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 says when to use (after search/list_docs) and when not to (when having URL/slug), providing alternatives (get_page).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_pageGet a MintMCP docs pageARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch a MintMCP documentation page from a public docs URL or a slug, for example "https://www.mintmcp.com/docs/security/tool-governance" or just "security/tool-governance". Use it when a user pastes a docs link or names a page directly. It returns the same full markdown content as fetch.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | A docs page URL or slug, e.g. "https://www.mintmcp.com/docs/enterprise/sso" or "enterprise/sso". |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| url | Yes | |
| text | Yes | |
| title | Yes | |
| metadata | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. Description adds that it returns full markdown content, same as fetch, which is helpful but not essential. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Each 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?
Given output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and parameter. Mentioning the return format aligns with sibling tool, making it complete.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single 'url' parameter. The description adds examples and clarifies that slugs are acceptable, enhancing understanding 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?
Description clearly states the tool fetches a MintMCP documentation page, using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'fetch' by specifying it targets docs pages and notes it returns the same content as fetch.
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 says 'Use it when a user pastes a docs link or names a page directly,' providing clear context. Could improve by mentioning when not to use it (e.g., non-docs URLs), but overall adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_docsList MintMCP docsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List the MintMCP documentation table of contents, grouped by category (Getting Started, Architecture, connectors, Enterprise, Agent Monitor, and more). Each entry has a page id you can pass to fetch. Use it to see what the docs cover or to browse a category before reading a page. Pass an optional category to list just that group.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional category name to filter by, e.g. "Enterprise" or "Agent Monitor". |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| categories | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is safe. The description adds that it returns page IDs and groups entries by category, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 cover the tool's purpose, usage, and parameter details without any wasted words. The information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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, an output schema exists (not shown but noted), so the description need not explain return values. It does mention page IDs, which is sufficient. Completeness is high for a listing 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?
The schema covers 100% of parameters, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of category values ('Enterprise', 'Agent Monitor'), which helps the agent understand correct usage more than the schema alone.
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 the MintMCP documentation table of contents grouped by category, with each entry having a page ID. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'fetch' or 'get_page' which retrieve specific pages.
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 tells when to use the tool: 'Use it to see what the docs cover or to browse a category before reading a page.' It also mentions optional category filtering. Though it doesn't state when not to use it, the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSearch MintMCP docsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search the full MintMCP documentation and get back matching pages with their ids, titles, and URLs. Use this first for any MintMCP question: setup, capabilities, security, or a specific connector (Snowflake, Slack, GitHub) or feature (SCIM, SIEM export, prompt security, Coworker Agents). Then pass a result id to the fetch tool to read the page. Coverage spans architecture, enterprise controls, and per-connector setup guides.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | What to look for, in natural language or keywords. Examples: "connect Snowflake", "SCIM provisioning", "block risky agent commands", "set up SSO with Okta", "Coworker Agent Slack". |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. The description adds coverage scope ('architecture, enterprise controls, per-connector setup guides') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. Value is moderate.
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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 tool has an output schema (not shown) but the description does not need to explain returns. It covers when to use, what it returns, how to follow up with fetch, and the scope of the documentation. Completeness is high for a single-parameter search 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter 'query' has a description with examples. The description enriches this by providing more specific examples and context about what to search for, going beyond the schema's baseline.
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 searches MintMCP docs and returns pages with ids, titles, URLs. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning to use fetch for reading a page.
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 advises using this tool first for any MintMCP question and then passing a result id to fetch. It provides context on what to search for (setup, security, connectors, features) and gives examples, though it does not explicitly 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.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables users to search and fetch Google's Gemini API documentation directly within an MCP-compliant environment. It provides structured access to guides and references for features like function calling, embeddings, and text generation.2
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceSearch and fetch MCP protocol documentation using BM25 search with weighted scoring and stemming.2352MIT
- Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceMCP server for documentation search that automatically indexes web documentation sites and provides semantic, full-text, or hybrid search capabilities.8MIT