max-docs

by Launchery

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v2.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct documentation aspect: endpoints, guides, bridge API, components, code examples, and general search. No two tools overlap in purpose; even get_bridge_api and get_component use parameters to switch between overview and detail, avoiding duplicate tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: list_endpoints, get_endpoint, search_docs, list_guides, get_guide, get_bridge_api, get_component, get_code_example. The verbs 'list', 'get', and 'search' are used predictably according to the action.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is well-scoped for a documentation server. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy, providing a comprehensive but manageable set for users to explore MAX documentation.
Completeness5/5
The server covers the full lifecycle of documentation access: listing endpoints, retrieving endpoint details, searching across all docs, listing guides, retrieving guides, accessing Bridge API docs, component docs, and code examples. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.
Average 3.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 6, 2026
- 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

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 explains the tool's action and available task values, but does not mention response format, error handling for unsupported tasks, or any limitations. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is minimal disclosure.
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: one sentence plus a list. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with the list of supported tasks. There is no redundant or filler content, and every part 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?
With a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's core purpose and supported tasks adequately. However, it omits details about the return type or structure of the code example, and does not discuss behavior when an invalid task is provided. This leaves some gaps for a tool operating without annotations.
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 input schema describes the 'task' parameter generically with examples, but the tool description adds a comprehensive enumeration of valid task keywords (send-message, webhook-setup, etc.). This supplements the schema's coverage and helps the agent select a valid value, exceeding the baseline for 100% 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 tool's purpose: getting a code example (Получить пример кода) for a typical MAX Bot API task. It enumerates eight supported tasks, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_endpoint or get_guide. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.
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: if one of the listed tasks matches your need, use this tool. It lists valid task keywords but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of other documentation tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage guidance is present but implicit.
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 disclose behavioral traits. It discloses the search scope and filtering capability, but does not specify return format, result limits, authorization requirements, or other behavioral details. This is a significant gap given the absence of 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?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and content scope. The second sentence adds filtering capabilities without redundancy. It achieves clarity in minimal words, earning a perfect score.
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?
The tool is a search across all docs, with schema covering the parameters adequately. However, the description does not explain return values, which is important since no output schema exists. The absence of authorization or result format details leaves the agent somewhat uncertain about the tool's behavior, but the core purpose is clear enough for basic invocation.
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?
Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that type and category serve as filters, aligning with schema, but does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema provides. The query parameter is adequately described in the schema, maintaining the baseline.
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 performs a search across all MAX documentation, listing specific content types (endpoints, models, guides, Bridge API, UI components). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering all documentation types and offering filtering. The verb 'search' and resource 'docs' are specific and unambiguous.
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 this is the broad search tool, while sibling tools are direct accessors, but it does not explicitly state when to use search_docs instead of specific getters. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. This leaves the agent to infer usage context, which is clear but not explicitly guided.
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 present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the scope ('all guides') but does not mention the return format, pagination, ordering, or filtering behavior beyond the schema's optional category field. This is minimal transparency for a listing 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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and enumerates the covered topics. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff.
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?
For a low-complexity list tool with one optional enum parameter, the description adequately conveys scope and category coverage. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note about the return structure or how this relates to get_guide for detailed viewing would improve completeness.
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 coverage for the single optional 'category' parameter is 100%, including an enum and a description. The tool description lists categories in prose, but this largely duplicates the schema and adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond what is already structured.
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') and resource ('all MAX documentation guides'), and enumerates specific categories (platform, bot creation, SDK, mini-apps, channels, partners, legal). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_guide (retrieving a single guide) and list_endpoints.
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 a generic listing use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_guide, search_docs, or list_endpoints. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided; the category filter is only present in the schema, not described in the tool description.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns complete documentation for an endpoint, which implicitly indicates a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error handling, required permissions, or any edge cases, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.
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 action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simple 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 tool's simplicity (2 fully described parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It states what is returned (full documentation) and the required inputs. It could be more explicit about the output format, but for a straightforward documentation lookup, this is sufficient.
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%, and both parameters ('method' and 'path') have descriptions. The description's phrase 'по методу и пути' (by method and path) adds little beyond the schema. Since the schema already fully documents parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Возвращает' (returns) and the specific resource 'полную документацию конкретного эндпоинта' (full documentation of a specific endpoint). It is differentiated from sibling tools like list_endpoints and search_docs by focusing on a single endpoint by method and path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on when to use the tool: when you need full documentation for a specific endpoint, identified by method and path. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose itself implies the appropriate usage scenario.
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 provided, the description must bear the burden of disclosure. It states that the tool returns a complete guide, but does not detail return format, error handling, or any potential side effects. However, as a read-only get operation, the behavior is largely predictable; a 3 is appropriate for a simple, honest description.
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 highly concise: two short sentences, with the primary function front-loaded and a useful cross-reference to list_guides. Every word 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?
For a simple single-parameter retrieval tool, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what is returned (full guide) and how to obtain valid IDs (list_guides). The lack of an output schema is not a critical gap given the tool's straightforward nature.
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 already has a rich description for the 'id' parameter with concrete examples, covering 100% of parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 that the tool returns a full guide by ID, using a clear verb ('returns') and a specific resource ('guide'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning list_guides for discovering available IDs, clarifying its role as a direct lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear usage hint: use list_guides to find IDs before calling get_guide. While it doesn't mention other alternatives like search_docs, it gives sufficient context for when this tool is appropriate.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual behavior (overview vs specific component) which is useful. However, it does not mention what the output format is, whether authentication is required, or how invalid names are handled. For a documentation lookup tool, this is acceptable but not rich.
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 two short sentences that convey the purpose, usage, and examples. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured with a clear distinction between the two parameter states.
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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and usage. It lacks explicit information about the return format or error behavior, but for a documentation tool this is unlikely to confuse an agent. The description is sufficiently complete for most invocations.
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 input schema's 'name' parameter already has a clear description with examples. The tool description adds meaningful context by explaining that omitting the parameter yields an overview and including it yields a specific component. This goes beyond the schema's basic description, so the baseline of 3 is raised to 4.
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: it provides documentation for MAX UI components. It specifies two modes: without parameters it returns a library overview, and with a parameter it returns a specific component (Button, Input, Avatar.Container, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_endpoint and get_guide.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage instructions: call without parameters for an overview, or pass a component name to get details. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusions, but the context makes the intended use evident.
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 discloses that the tool returns a table and lists the contents (method, path, description), which is the primary behavior. For a simple read-only listing tool, this is sufficient, though it does not mention potential limitations or error conditions.
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 containing exactly the necessary information: what is returned and what it includes. No wasted words.
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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it states the return type and the exact columns provided. No additional context is needed for the tool's intended use.
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 input schema has no properties, so there are zero parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly does not attempt to explain non-existent 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 tool's purpose: returning a table of all MAX Bot API endpoints with method, path, and description. The verb 'Возвращает' (returns) and resource 'таблицу всех эндпоинтов' are specific, and the scope ('всех') distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_endpoint.
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?
While the description implies when to use this tool (when needing an overview of all endpoints), it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. No mention of using get_endpoint for specific endpoints. The guidance is implicit only.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must reveal behavioral traits. It discloses the conditional output based on parameter presence, names example objects, and mentions the 'events' option. It does not describe response structure or permissions, but for a read-only documentation tool this is sufficient.
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 conveys all essential information without redundancy. It states the subject, explains the two modes, and gives examples, earning its place with no wasted words.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the two invocation modes and hints at return values (overview, object, events). It is nearly complete; slightly more detail about the structure of the returned documentation could make it perfect.
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 input schema already lists valid values with 100% coverage. The description adds the critical semantic that omitting the parameter yields an overview, which is not encoded in the schema (since the parameter is optional). This extra context clarifies the parameter's behavioral effect beyond the schema.
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 that the tool provides documentation for the MAX Bridge API (window.WebApp) and clearly distinguishes its behavior based on the optional parameter: an overview without parameters, or a specific object/events with a parameter. This is specific and differentiates it from sibling documentation tools like list_endpoints or get_endpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context: use without parameters for an overview, with a parameter for a specific object (e.g., BackButton, HapticFeedback) or 'events' for event listings. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the parameter-dependent guidance is practical and unambiguous.
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:

[![max_docs_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Launchery/max_docs_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Launchery/max_docs_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![max_docs_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Launchery/max_docs_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Launchery/max_docs_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/Launchery/max_docs_mcp'

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