A
license-
qualityC
maintenanceEnables MCP clients to access and read mdbook documentation, including structure, content, and search.
12
3
MIT
docs
Server Details
Political Comms documentation MCP server: search docs, query the docs filesystem. No auth.
- 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 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: query_docs_filesystem for reading full pages, search_political_comms for finding relevant snippets, and submit_feedback for reporting issues. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names are inconsistent: one is very long with nested underscores (query_docs_filesystem_political_comms), another is shorter (search_political_comms), and submit_feedback follows a different pattern. No consistent verb_noun structure across all names.
Tool Count4/5
Three tools cover the core needs of documentation access and feedback. While slightly minimal, the set is well-scoped for its purpose and does not feel bloated or incomplete.
Completeness4/5
The server provides search and full-page retrieval (via filesystem commands) plus feedback. Users can explore, read, and report issues. Minor gap: no dedicated 'list pages' tool, but tree/ls in query covers it. Suitable for the domain.
Available Tools
3 toolsquery_docs_filesystem_political_commsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Run a read-only shell-like query against a virtualized, in-memory filesystem rooted at / that contains ONLY the Political Comms documentation pages and OpenAPI specs. This is NOT a shell on any real machine — nothing runs on the user's computer, the server host, or any network. The filesystem is a sandbox backed by documentation chunks.
This is how you read documentation pages: there is no separate "get page" tool. To read a page, pass its .mdx path (e.g. /quickstart.mdx, /api-reference/create-customer.mdx) to head or cat. To search the docs with exact keyword or regex matches, use rg. To understand the docs structure, use tree or ls.
Workflow: Start with the search tool for broad or conceptual queries like "how to authenticate" or "rate limiting". Use this tool when you need exact keyword/regex matching, structural exploration, or to read the full content of a specific page by path.
Supported commands: rg (ripgrep), grep, find, tree, ls, cat, head, tail, stat, wc, sort, uniq, cut, sed, awk, jq, plus basic text utilities. No writes, no network, no process control. Run --help on any command for usage.
Each call is STATELESS: the working directory always resets to / and no shell variables, aliases, or history carry over between calls. If you need to operate in a subdirectory, chain commands in one call with && or pass absolute paths (e.g., cd /api-reference && ls or ls /api-reference). Do NOT assume that cd in one call affects the next call.
Examples:
tree / -L 2— see the top-level directory layoutrg -il "rate limit" /— find all files mentioning "rate limit"rg -C 3 "apiKey" /api-reference/— show matches with 3 lines of context around each hithead -80 /quickstart.mdx— read the top 80 lines of a specific pagehead -80 /quickstart.mdx /installation.mdx /guides/first-deploy.mdx— read multiple pages in one callcat /api-reference/create-customer.mdx— read a full page when you need everythingcat /openapi/spec.json | jq '.paths | keys'— list OpenAPI endpoints
Output is truncated to 30KB per call. Prefer targeted rg -C or head -N over broad cat on large files. To read only the relevant sections of a large file, use rg -C 3 "pattern" /path/file.mdx. Batch multiple file reads into a single head or cat call whenever possible.
When referencing pages in your response to the user, convert filesystem paths to URL paths by removing the .mdx extension. For example, /quickstart.mdx becomes /quickstart and /api-reference/overview.mdx becomes /api-reference/overview.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | A shell command to run against the virtualized documentation filesystem (e.g., `rg -il "keyword" /`, `tree / -L 2`, `head -80 /path/file.mdx`). |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the sandbox nature (no real machine, no network), statelessness (working directory resets, no variables/aliases/history), output truncation to 30KB, and the need to chain commands. It also explains how to convert paths to URLs, providing rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.
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 detailed and well-structured with clear sections (workflow, supported commands, statelessness, examples, output limits). While it is long, every section adds value and the examples are practical. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose and usage.
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 the tool's complexity (multiple commands, statelessness, output limits) and the single parameter, the description is comprehensive. It covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how to use it, limitations, and output handling. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the detailed description of output truncation and command behavior.
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 describes the 'command' parameter with examples, and the description adds extensive context on how to use it, including supported commands, chaining with '&&', and absolute paths. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description enriches the parameter's usage, a score of 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 runs read-only shell-like queries against a virtualized in-memory filesystem containing only Political Comms documentation. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a real shell and from sibling tools by noting there is no separate 'get page' tool, making its 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 Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit workflow guidance: start with search for broad queries, use this tool for exact keyword/regex matching, structural exploration, or reading specific pages. It also contrasts with the sibling search_political_comms tool by specifying when to use this tool versus alternatives, and includes examples of command usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_political_commsSearch documentationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search across the Political Comms knowledge base to find relevant information, code examples, API references, and guides. Use this tool when you need to answer questions about Political Comms, find specific documentation, understand how features work, or locate implementation details. The search returns contextual content with titles and direct links to the documentation pages. If you need the full content of a specific page, use the query_docs_filesystem tool to head or cat the page path (append .mdx to the path returned from search — e.g. head -200 /api-reference/create-customer.mdx).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) establish the tool as safe and non-mutating, and the description is consistent with this. The description does not add extra behavioral details (e.g., rate limits), but the annotations cover the essential safety profile, so transparency is adequate.
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, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's function and usage. All sentences contribute meaningful information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 mentions that the tool returns contextual content with titles and links, and it advises using another tool for full content. This provides a reasonable understanding of the output and follow-up actions, though it omits details on pagination or limitations, which are not critical for a 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?
The schema provides full coverage with a single 'query' parameter described as 'Search query'. While minimal, it accurately conveys the expected input. The description does not add further detail, but the meaning is unambiguous for a search tool.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to search across the Political Comms knowledge base for relevant information, code examples, API references, and guides. This is a clear and specific verb-resource pair.
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 clear guidance on when to use the tool (when answering questions about Political Comms, finding documentation, etc.) and explicitly mentions an alternative (query_docs_filesystem) for retrieving full page content, offering a complete usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_feedbackSubmit documentation feedbackAInspect
Report a problem with this documentation site so the docs team can fix it. Use when a documentation page is incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example. This is for feedback about the documentation content itself — not for product support requests or feedback about this tool or assistant.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | The documentation page path the feedback is about (e.g., the page you were reading, such as `/quickstart`). | |
| feedback | Yes | A clear description of the documentation issue or suggestion — what is incorrect, outdated, missing, or confusing. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already marking the tool as non-read-only and non-idempotent, the description adds useful context: it explains the intended audience and outcome (docs team will fix), and reiterates what is not in scope. It does not mention side effects like duplicate submissions, but the action is low-risk and the annotations cover the basic mutation profile.
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 main action, followed by conditions and exclusions. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundancy or tangential content.
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 simple 2-parameter submission tool with complete schema descriptions and adequate annotations, the description covers the human-readable context sufficiently: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it is not for. No return-output details are necessary because no output schema exists and the submission is a fire-and-forget feedback action.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, including an example for `path` and guidance for `feedback`. The description reinforces the semantic context but adds no newly meaningful detail beyond schema content, so 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Report a problem with this documentation site so the docs team can fix it.' It further clarifies the target scope and distinguishes from unrelated siblings by naming the exact feedback categories (incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, broken example).
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 explicitly states when to use the tool—when a documentation page is incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example—and explicitly excludes product support requests and feedback about the tool/assistant. This provides clear boundaries without needing a named alternative tool.
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
- Flicense-qualityBmaintenanceMCP server that exposes one or more documentation folders (Markdown, MDX, TXT) to AI agents, enabling listing, reading, and searching of documentation files.
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceThis server crawls documentation sites and provides search and page-retrieval tools through MCP, enabling users to query indexed documentation content.4MIT
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceMCP server to search and read documentation pages from a WikiJS instance via its GraphQL API.