Skip to main content
Glama
ChouChiu

MD3-Docs MCP

by ChouChiu
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: listing available documents, searching for content, and reading a specific document. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_md3_doc pattern with snake_case, using 'list', 'search', and 'read' as clear action prefixes.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is a perfect fit for a documentation-focused server: discover (list), find (search), and retrieve (read). Not too few, not too many.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers the core workflow of discovering, searching, and reading docs. A minor gap might be the absence of a direct document listing by category, but list_md3_docs already returns all docs, and search can filter.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 10 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context that it searches a 'live' site and restricts categories, which is useful 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?

    Single sentence delivering core purpose with no fluff. Highly efficient.

    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?

    While the description covers the main purpose, the lack of parameter explanations and usage guidance leaves it insufficiently complete for a tool with 4 parameters and an output schema. Scores average.

    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 explain any of the 4 parameters (query, limit, cursor, category). The agent receives no guidance on parameter usage from the description.

    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 verb 'Search', the resource 'live Material Design 3 site', and the scope 'restricted to Foundations, Styles, and Components'. This distinguishes it from siblings list_md3_docs and read_md3_doc.

    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 implies the tool is for searching within the specified categories but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, nor 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.

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the word 'live,' hinting at dynamic content, but does not disclose pagination behavior (cursor, limit) or that results may change over time. No contradiction with annotations.

    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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting parameter details, which is a structural gap. It is not wasteful but incomplete.

    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?

    An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, with 4 parameters and no parameter guidance, the description does not fully equip the agent to use the tool effectively (e.g., how to narrow results by category or prefix). It covers the basic purpose but misses control mechanisms.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden but fails to explain any of the 4 parameters (limit, cursor, prefix, category). The agent lacks context for filtering (prefix, category) and pagination (limit, cursor). The description adds no value over the parameter names.

    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 it lists 'live Material Design 3 Foundations, Styles, and Components documents.' This clearly identifies the verb (list), resource (MD3 docs), and scope (three categories), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_md3_docs (search) and read_md3_doc (read a specific doc).

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no indication of prerequisites, when to prefer this over search_md3_docs or read_md3_doc, or any exclusions. The context is implied but not stated.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the output format (English Markdown), live nature, and pagination via cursor. The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations are consistent, and the description enhances understanding.

    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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and key features. Every piece of information is relevant, with no redundancy.

    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 4 parameters (one required) and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core use case but omits details on parameter usage (e.g., how cursor pagination works, maxCharacters role). Output schema exists but unknown; overall, it is minimally adequate.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description must explain parameters. It only hints at 'section selection' and 'cursor pagination' for the section and cursor parameters, leaving path and maxCharacters unexplained. This is insufficient compensation.

    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 reads a live Material Design 3 document as English Markdown, specifying section selection and cursor pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools list_md3_docs and search_md3_docs, which serve different purposes.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies usage for reading documents with section and pagination options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_md3_docs. No exclusion criteria or comparative guidance is provided.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

MD3-Docs-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

MD3-Docs-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ChouChiu/MD3-Docs-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server