outline-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool clearly targets a distinct resource and action: document CRUD, comments, collections, search, and user info. No overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_document, list_comments), with 'whoami' as a minor but acceptable exception.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools cover the core operations for a knowledge base server (documents, comments, collections, search, auth) without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness2/5
Missing key lifecycle operations: no delete for documents or comments, no collection creation/update/deletion. Notable gaps that could cause agent failures.
Average 3/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states basic listing/filtering, omitting default sorting, pagination behavior, or response structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (7 words), which is concise. However, given the number of parameters and lack of schema descriptions, it is under-specified and could benefit from more detail.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It lacks information on pagination, default sort, filtering semantics, and return format, making it insufficient for correct agent invocation.
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 adds little meaning. It mentions filtering by name/status but does not clarify that 'query' is for name or how other parameters (sort, limit, offset, direction) affect results.
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 'collections', and mentions optional filtering. However, it refers to filtering by 'name' while the schema has a 'query' parameter, creating a slight mismatch.
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 siblings like list_documents or search_documents. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions listing and scoping, ignoring pagination (limit/offset), sorting (sort/direction), status filtering, and result structure. This omission leaves agents unaware of common behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence. While concise, it sacrifices necessary information. It could be slightly longer to include pagination or sorting without being verbose.
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?
Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely underdeveloped. It omits critical context like pagination, sorting, default behavior, and result format, making it inadequate for correct tool invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It only covers 3 of 8 parameters (collection_id, parent_document_id, user_id) by mentioning 'collection, parent, or author'. Missing sort, limit, offset, direction, status_filter. Does not compensate for low 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 tool lists documents and mentions optional scoping by collection, parent, or author. This distinguishes it from get_document (single) and search_documents (full-text search), but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like list_collections.
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 sibling tools like search_documents or get_document. The description implies scoping but does not explain trade-offs or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a document' and mentions publishing requirements, but fails to explain what happens when neither collection_id nor parent_document_id is provided (e.g., draft creation, failure). No details on permissions, side effects, or final state are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences), but the first sentence ('Create a document') is largely redundant with the tool name. The second sentence adds value about publishing requirements. While concise, the structure is not front-loaded with the most critical information; an improved version would move key constraints first.
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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, required prerequisites beyond publishing, error states, or the effect of omitting optional parameters. The tool's behavior in the common case (draft creation) is entirely absent.
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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description must compensate but does not: it only references collection and parent in the context of publishing, and does not explain the purpose or expected values of parameters like icon, text, template_id, or publish. This leaves agents guessing about parameter semantics.
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 creates a document, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_comment because the resource (document vs comment) is explicit. However, it does not elaborate further to differentiate from other document-related tools like update_document or list_documents.
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 by mentioning publishing requirements, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_comment or update_document. No exclusions or context for non-publish scenarios are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or reversibility of updates. The only behavioral detail is the requirement for find_text in patch mode.
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?
Two sentences are concise and front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured to improve readability.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks context on return values, error conditions, and behavioral nuances for different edit modes. Incomplete for effective use.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It only explains the relationship between edit_mode and find_text, but does not clarify the purpose of id (required), text, title, or publish parameters. No semantics added for most parameters.
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 'Update a document' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_document, which could be clarified. The mention of edit_mode adds specificity.
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 mentions that patch mode requires find_text, but provides no guidance on when to use replace, append, or prepend modes. No comparison with sibling tools or context on when to use update vs create.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description holds the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full-text search' and 'ranked snippets', but does not disclose important traits: pagination defaults, sorting behavior, whether filters are inclusive/exclusive, or any rate limits. The safety profile (read vs. write) is implied but not confirmed.
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 very concise at two sentences with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, given the tool's complexity (10 parameters), a slightly longer description might be justified. Still, it earns a high score for avoiding verbosity.
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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It covers only the basic search and result format, omitting all filtering, sorting, and pagination capabilities. The agent lacks critical context for effective usage.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'query' parameter (as 'keyword'), ignoring 9 other parameters including sort, limit, offset, direction, date_filter, document_id, collection_id, status_filter, and user_id. The agent cannot infer their purpose or constraints 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 'Full-text search documents by keyword' and indicates what it returns ('ranked snippets with their documents'). It effectively distinguishes this search tool from sibling tools like list_documents (listing all) or get_document (single document retrieval).
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. No usage context, prerequisites, or recommendations are given. The agent has no information about scenarios where search is preferred over listing or filtering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning markdown text but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. It also omits authentication or rate limit details.
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, concise sentence that is mostly clear. However, the phrase 'by UUID, urlId, or share id' could be misinterpreted as three separate parameters, slightly reducing precision.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more detail about the return structure and error scenarios. It only mentions markdown text, leaving other fields and potential issues unclear.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description introduces confusion by mentioning 'urlId' as a parameter, but the schema only includes 'id' and 'share_id'. The description does not clarify the meaning of 'id' (e.g., UUID or urlId) or how 'share_id' relates to the three mentioned identifiers.
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 'Fetch', the resource 'single document', and specifies that it includes markdown text. It also lists three identifiers (UUID, urlId, share id), which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'list_documents' and 'search_documents'.
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 when you have a specific identifier, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_documents' or 'search_documents'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It indicates a read-only operation but fails to disclose important behaviors such as pagination (limit/offset), default ordering, or what happens with no scoping. The agent gets minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it too minimal for the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations).
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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It provides the main purpose but omits return values, pagination details, and default behavior, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 marginally helps by hinting at the scoping parameters (document_id, collection_id) but completely ignores limit, offset, and include_anchor_text. The agent has no semantic guidance for these parameters.
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 action ('List comments') and the resource ('comments'), with an optional scoping to a document or collection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_comment (creation) and list_documents (different resource).
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 that the tool is for listing comments and can be scoped, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., when to use create_comment instead) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a mutation action but omits details about permissions, side effects, or reversibility, providing only the basic purpose.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key parameter guidance, with no wasted words.
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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential intent and two key parameters. However, it does not explain anchor_* or parent_comment_id, which are necessary for complete understanding in more complex scenarios.
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 0%, so the description adds some value: it explains that 'text' is markdown (preferred) and 'data' is rich-text. However, it does not cover the other five parameters (document_id, anchor_*, parent_comment_id), leaving much to 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 'Add a comment to a document' clearly states the action (add) and resource (comment to a document), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_comments or create_document.
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. The description only offers parameter usage hints (markdown vs rich-text) but does not address tool selection context.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the output (authenticated user and team) and implies no side effects. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits or auth requirements beyond the name.
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, concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous text.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does. It is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand usage.
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 no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is acceptable as no parameters exist.
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 returns the authenticated user and team for the current token. This is a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from all sibling tools which deal with documents and comments.
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. However, the tool serves a unique purpose (authentication info) with no overlapping siblings, so usage is implied.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![outline-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Geoffrey313/outline-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Geoffrey313/outline-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![outline-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Geoffrey313/outline-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Geoffrey313/outline-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/Geoffrey313/outline-mcp'

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