Skip to main content
Glama
Laegend14

genlayer-docs-mcp

by Laegend14
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
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 distinct purpose: listing all sections, retrieving a specific section by exact title, and searching for relevant sections. No overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_section, list_sections, search_docs), making them predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools are appropriate for a documentation server, covering the essential operations without unnecessary complexity.

    Completeness4/5

    Covers listing, retrieval, and search. A minor gap might be lacking a 'get all sections with content' operation, but the current set is sufficient for most use cases.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 6 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

  • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    The description discloses that it returns 'top matching sections with their hierarchical titles and full content,' indicating a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authorization, or constraints like maximum top_k value.

    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 core purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

    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 no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is somewhat adequate but misses details on parameter semantics and lacks full behavioral disclosure (e.g., pagination, error handling).

    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?

    The schema has 0% coverage, yet the description does not explain the 'top_k' parameter (integer, default 5) and only implicitly covers 'query.' This leaves agents without guidance on how to use the optional parameter effectively.

    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's function: 'Search the GenLayer documentation for relevant sections matching a query.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_section and list_sections by focusing on searching based on a query.

    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 finding documentation sections, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but not referenced in guidance.

    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, and the description only states 'Retrieve the full content,' which implies a read operation. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, access restrictions, or error handling (e.g., if title not found). For a tool with no annotations, the description lacks necessary 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.

    Conciseness5/5

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

    A single sentence with an example, front-loaded with the verb 'Retrieve,' no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

    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?

    Given the simple single-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema (which presumably documents the return value), the description adequately explains what the tool does. It could mention error cases, but overall it is sufficient for a straightforward retrieval 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 description adds meaning by specifying that the title must be exact and provides examples. With 0% schema description coverage, this significantly clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. However, it does not specify case-sensitivity or format details.

    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 (Retrieve), the resource (full content of a specific documentation section), and the input (exact title) with concrete examples (e.g., 'Optimistic Democracy'). This directly distinguishes it from siblings like list_sections (which lists sections) and search_docs (which searches across docs).

    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 the exact title is known, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide guidance on when not to use it. The distinction is implicit rather than stated.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (listing) but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output constraints. Minimal behavioral info beyond the obvious.

    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 with no extraneous words, effectively front-loaded. Every word is informative and earns its place.

    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?

    Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is mostly complete. Could potentially mention the output structure but not necessary. Simple tool, adequate context.

    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?

    No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as there are no parameters to document. Baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

    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 'List', the resource 'section titles and headings', and the scope 'in the GenLayer documentation'. It is specific and distinct from siblings like get_section (retrieves a single section) and search_docs (searches across docs).

    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 needing an overview of available sections but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No guidance on when not to use.

    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

Genlayer-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

Genlayer-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/Laegend14/Genlayer-mcp'

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