Which integrations are available for this server?

Used as an HTML parser to extract and process content from MSFS SDK documentation pages Serves as the runtime environment for the MSFS SDK MCP server Optional integration for browser automation to enhance documentation retrieval capabilities Used as the primary programming language for building the MSFS SDK MCP server

How do I use MSFS SDK MCP Server?

1. Click on "Deploy Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@MSFS SDK MCP Server search for livery documentation in the MSFS SDK" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

MSFS SDK MCP Server

by 90barricade93

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

MSFS SDK MCP Server

Node.js TypeScript MCP License Build

A modern, performant MCP server for fast, structured access to Microsoft Flight Simulator SDK documentation via natural language and structured queries.

🚀 Features

⚡️ Real-time documentation search in the official MSFS SDK documentation
📚 Multiple search categories: contents, index, glossary, all
🧠 Natural language processing: queries like "Search livery op msfs sdk"
📊 Structured results: titles, URLs, descriptions, categories
📄 Detailed content retrieval from specific documentation pages
🔌 Full MCP compatibility with AI assistants and tools
💾 Embedded data: no external files needed
🛡️ Robust error handling and logging

Related MCP server: mcp-docs

🛠️ Tech Stack

Runtime: Node.js 18+
Language: TypeScript 5.0
Framework: Model Context Protocol (MCP)
HTTP Client: node-fetch
HTML Parser: Cheerio
Browser Automation: Puppeteer (optional)
Build Tool: TypeScript Compiler

📋 Requirements

Node.js 18.x or higher
npm 8.x or higher
TypeScript 5.x

🚀 Setup

Clone the repository:

git clone https://github.com/yourusername/msfs-sdk-mcp.git
cd msfs-sdk-mcp

Install dependencies:
```
npm install
```
Build the project:
```
npm run build
```
Start the server:
```
npm start
```

🔧 Available Tools

Tool	Description	Parameters
`search_msfs_docs`	🔍 Search MSFS SDK documentation	`query`, `category`, `limit`
`get_doc_content`	📄 Retrieve detailed content	`url`, `section`
`list_categories`	📚 Show all search categories	-
`list_category_items`	📋 List items per category	`category`
`natural_language_query`	🧠 Natural language queries	`query`

🏷️ Search Categories

contents - 📖 Main documentation content
index - 📇 Documentation index entries
glossary - 📚 Technical terms and definitions
all - 🌐 Search across all categories (default: index)

🔌 Integration with AI Assistants

This server works with MCP-compatible AI assistants such as:

🤖 Claude Desktop - Official MCP support
🌊 Windsurf IDE - Built-in MCP integration
🔧 Other MCP clients - All MCP-compatible tools

⚙️ Configuration Example

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "msfs-sdk": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["path/to/msfs-sdk-mcp/dist/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

📁 Project Structure

msfs-sdk-mcp/
├── 📄 package.json             # Dependencies and scripts
├── 📄 tsconfig.json            # TypeScript configuration
├── 📄 README.md               # Project documentation
├── 📄 LICENSE                 # MIT License
├── 📂 src/
│   ├── 📄 index.ts            # 🚀 Main MCP server
│   └── 📂 services/
│       ├── 📄 documentationService.ts  # 🔍 Search logic
│       └── 📄 naturalLanguageService.ts # 🧠 NLP processing
└── 📂 dist/                   # 🏗️ Compiled JavaScript

🧪 Development & Scripts

Script	Description	Command
🏗️ Build	Compile TypeScript	`npm run build`
👀 Dev	Watch mode development	`npm run dev`
🚀 Start	Start MCP server	`npm start`
🔍 Type Check	TypeScript validation	`npx tsc --noEmit`

📚 API Reference

📈 Tool Examples

🔍 search_msfs_docs

{
  "name": "search_msfs_docs",
  "arguments": {
    "query": "livery",
    "category": "all",
    "limit": 10
  }
}

📋 list_category_items

{
  "name": "list_category_items",
  "arguments": {
    "category": "glossary"
  }
}

📄 get_doc_content

{
  "name": "get_doc_content",
  "arguments": {
    "url": "https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/...",
    "section": "overview"
  }
}

🌐 Search URL Format

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Introduction/Introduction.htm?rhsearch={query}&agt={category}

Parameters:

{query} - 🔍 Search term (URL-encoded)
{category} - 🏷️ Optional category (index, glossary, or empty for contents)

📊 Response Format

{
  "content": [
    {
      "type": "text",
      "text": "**Title**\n- Category: category\n- URL: url\n- Description: description"
    }
  ]
}

🤝 Contributing

🍴 Fork this repository
🌱 Create a feature branch: git checkout -b feature-name
✨ Implement and test your changes
📝 Commit with clear message: git commit -am 'Add new feature'
🚀 Push to your branch: git push origin feature-name
📩 Open a Pull Request

📅 Commit Convention

feat: - New features
fix: - Bug fixes
docs: - Documentation updates
refactor: - Code refactoring
test: - Test additions

📄 License

MIT License – See LICENSE file for details.

📞 Support & Contact

🐛 Issues: GitHub Issues
📚 MSFS SDK Docs: Official documentation
❓ New issue? Provide clear information and reproducible steps

📅 Changelog

v1.0.0 - 🎉 Initial Release

✨ Initial release - Complete MCP server implementation
🔍 Real-time documentation search - Fast access to MSFS SDK docs
📚 Multiple search categories - Contents, index, glossary support
🧠 Natural language processing - Intuitive query processing
🔌 MCP standard support - Full compatibility
💾 Embedded data - No external dependencies

⚠️ Disclaimer

This is an unofficial tool, not affiliated with Microsoft or Microsoft Flight Simulator. Provides access to public documentation via the official MSFS SDK website.

🚀 Happy Flying! ✈️

GitHub forks &ensp; © 90barricade93 - aero-ai-solutions.com &ensp; GitHub stars

Available Tools

5 tools

get_doc_contentC

Get detailed content from a specific MSFS SDK documentation page

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	URL of the documentation page to retrieve
`section`	No	Specific section to extract (e.g., "overview", "examples", "api-reference")

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves content but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves network requests and content extraction.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of retrieving documentation content (involving URLs and optional sections), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed content' includes, how errors are handled, or any behavioral traits, leaving gaps for effective tool use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('url' and 'section') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying content extraction, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context like URL format requirements or section handling specifics.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed content') and resource ('specific MSFS SDK documentation page'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_msfs_docs' or 'natural_language_query', which might also retrieve documentation content through different mechanisms.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid URL), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'search_msfs_docs' for broader searches or 'natural_language_query' for query-based retrieval.

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

list_categoriesB

List all available MSFS SDK documentation categories

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it returns a paginated list, the format of the output, or any rate limits. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format or behavioral context, which could be helpful for an agent to use it effectively, though not strictly required for such a straightforward 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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, aligning with the schema, which justifies a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all available MSFS SDK documentation categories'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_category_items', which might list items within categories rather than the categories themselves.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_category_items' or 'search_msfs_docs'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether this is a starting point for documentation navigation or if it requires authentication.

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

list_category_itemsC

Returns all items for a given documentation category

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`category`	Yes	Category to list items from (index, contents, or glossary)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Returns all items,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's paginated, the format of returned items, potential rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It lacks details on return values (e.g., item format, list structure), error handling, or integration with sibling tools, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the straightforward schema.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'category' parameter with an enum of allowed values. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of what 'items' entail or how categories relate to documentation structure, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('all items for a given documentation category'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_categories' (which likely lists categories rather than items within them) or 'get_doc_content' (which might fetch specific document content), leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid category from 'list_categories', or compare it to siblings like 'search_msfs_docs' for more targeted queries, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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

natural_language_queryC

Process natural language queries like "Search livery op msfs sdk"

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Natural language query (e.g., "Search livery op msfs sdk")

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'processes' queries but gives no behavioral details: no indication of what processing entails (e.g., parsing, interpreting, returning results), whether it's read-only or mutative, what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like. The example implies MSFS SDK context but doesn't clarify if this is required or just an example.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence and zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a helpful example. Every element earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'processing' means behaviorally, what results to expect, or how this differs from sibling tools. The example suggests MSFS SDK context but leaves this ambiguous. More context is needed given the lack of structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'query' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing an example query ('Search livery op msfs sdk'), but doesn't explain parameter semantics like format expectations, length limits, or special handling. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Process natural language queries' with a specific example. It uses a verb ('process') and identifies the resource ('natural language queries'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_msfs_docs' which might handle similar content.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_msfs_docs' or explain what makes this tool different (e.g., handling unstructured queries vs. structured searches). The example query suggests MSFS SDK context, but this isn't stated as a requirement or limitation.

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

search_msfs_docsC

Search MSFS SDK documentation for specific topics

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	Search query for MSFS SDK documentation
`category`	No	Optional category filter (e.g., "contents", "index", "glossary")
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Search') but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search returns (e.g., format, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral context. For a search tool with multiple parameters, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or usage tips for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('MSFS SDK documentation'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'natural_language_query' or 'get_doc_content', which might also involve documentation retrieval, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'natural_language_query' or 'list_category_items'. The description implies usage for searching topics but offers no explicit context, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

5 tool updatesAug 15, 2025
- First observedget_doc_content
- First observedlist_categories
- First observedlist_category_items
- First observednatural_language_query
- First observedsearch_msfs_docs

Deploy Server

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored 2026-04-18 09:05 across 5 tools

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes: get_doc_content retrieves specific pages, list_categories and list_category_items handle hierarchical browsing, and search_msfs_docs performs keyword searches. However, natural_language_query overlaps with search_msfs_docs as both handle search-like functionality, which could cause minor confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structures (e.g., get_doc_content, list_categories, search_msfs_docs). The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of accessing MSFS SDK documentation. Each tool serves a distinct role in browsing, retrieving, and searching documentation, making the count appropriate and manageable.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core documentation access needs: browsing categories, listing items, retrieving content, and searching. A minor gap exists in update or management operations, but this is reasonable for a read-only documentation server, and agents can work effectively with the provided tools.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

forkast-mcp-docs A
io.github.ForkastPredict
MCP server for querying Forkast documentation
Documentation Access Search Developer Tools
42
mcp A
ai.llmse
Public MCP server for the LLM Search Engine
Search RAG Systems Developer Tools
102
driflyte-mcp-server
com.driflyte
Driflyte MCP server which lets AI assistants query topic-specific knowledge from web and GitHub.
Search Web Scraping Knowledge & Memory
211
opencode
io.github.doc2mcp
MCP server for opencode documentation, generated by doc2mcp.
Documentation Access Developer Tools
24

Related MCP Servers

MCP Documentation Server
Documentation Access Developer Tools Search
glassBead-tc
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
Provides comprehensive access to MCP documentation through structured guides, full-text search, and interactive development workflows for building servers and clients.
Updated a year ago (2025-09-19 13:06 UTC)
3
10 npm
MIT
mcp-docs
Documentation Access Search
gmantovani2005
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Generic MCP server that exposes Markdown documentation to LLMs, enabling them to search and answer questions about any software documentation.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-05-03 13:02 UTC)
MIT
Whoosh RAG MCP
RAG Systems Search Documentation Access
jianlins
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
An MCP server that provides full-text search over documentation using Whoosh, enabling AI assistants to find up-to-date, authoritative answers.
Updated 10 months ago (2025-11-22 01:16 UTC)
MIT
Dedalus MCP Documentationofficial
Documentation Access Search RAG Systems
dedalus-labs
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
An MCP server that serves documentation and enables AI-powered search, Q\&A, and document analysis for developer tools and guides.
Updated a year ago (2025-09-20 12:06 UTC)
5
4
MIT

MSFS SDK MCP Server

🚀 Features

🛠️ Tech Stack

📋 Requirements

🚀 Setup

🔧 Available Tools

🏷️ Search Categories

🔌 Integration with AI Assistants

⚙️ Configuration Example

📁 Project Structure

🧪 Development & Scripts

📚 API Reference

📈 Tool Examples

🔍 search_msfs_docs

📋 list_category_items

📄 get_doc_content

🌐 Search URL Format

📊 Response Format

🤝 Contributing

📅 Commit Convention

📄 License

📞 Support & Contact

📅 Changelog

v1.0.0 - 🎉 Initial Release

⚠️ Disclaimer

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Dedalus MCP Documentationofficial