Skip to main content
Glama

Devdocs Io

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Db

db
Read-onlyIdempotent

Content database for a doc (large).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "slug": "javascript"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "description": "HTML content for the entry",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "description": "Content database with entry paths as keys and HTML as values",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the word 'large' as extra context, which is minimal and does not disclose how the tool behaves, what it returns, or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, which might suggest conciseness, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential action and context, so the brevity does not serve a useful purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one required parameter, no schema description coverage, and a vague noun-phrase description, the tool is inadequate for an agent to select or invoke correctly. The output schema and annotations exist, but the description does not explain the purpose, input, or expected behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'slug' parameter at all. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Content database for a doc (large)' is a noun phrase that restates the tool name without an action verb. It does not clearly state what the tool does or how it differs from sibling tools like 'docs', 'entry', or 'search_within'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for a doc (large)' offers a minor hint about scope but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Devdocs Io toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There are many tools with overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple ways to ask questions, multiple Polymarket analysis tools, multiple company lookup tools). The detailed descriptions help distinguish them, but an agent could still easily select the wrong one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun patterns (ask_pipeworx, search_docs) with single words (db, docs) and compound names (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check). No clear convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a DevDocs documentation server; most tools are unrelated to documentation (Pipeworx data, memory, subscriptions). The core documentation functionality only requires about 7-8 tools, making the rest feel extraneous.

Completeness3/5

For the core DevDocs functionality, the tools cover listing, searching, and fetching documentation. However, the server includes many unrelated tools that are incomplete on their own (e.g., only some data lookups, no CRUD for prediction markets). Thus overall completeness is mediocre.

Resources