Skip to main content
Glama
LeomaiaJr

Gemini Docs MCP Server

by LeomaiaJr
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes with no overlap: fetch_gemini_doc retrieves and parses specific documentation pages, while search_gemini_docs searches across the documentation index to find relevant pages. The descriptions explicitly guide users to use search first when unsure of the path, then fetch for detailed content, creating a logical workflow without confusion.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a perfect verb_noun pattern with consistent snake_case naming: fetch_gemini_doc and search_gemini_docs. The naming clearly indicates the action (fetch/search) and the target (gemini_doc/gemini_docs), making them predictable and easy to understand as a set.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, this server feels thin for a documentation exploration domain. While the tools cover the core workflow of search-then-fetch, additional operations like listing available documentation categories or getting metadata about the documentation set would enhance completeness. The count is borderline minimal but functional.

    Completeness4/5

    For a documentation server, the surface covers the essential workflow: searching for relevant pages and fetching detailed content. The main gap is the lack of a tool to browse or list available documentation sections without searching, which could help agents discover content. However, the search tool with its comprehensive examples mitigates this gap reasonably well.

  • Average 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 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
    • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with a closed world. The description adds valuable context about what gets searched (titles, categories, keywords) and provides concrete examples of search queries that work well, which helps the agent understand practical usage patterns beyond the safety profile covered by 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 well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, examples, usage guidance) and appropriately sized. While comprehensive, some information (like the detailed return format specification) might be slightly verbose given there's no output schema, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

    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?

    Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, usage workflow with sibling tool, parameter examples, and return format details even without an output schema. The examples section adds practical guidance that helps the agent use the tool effectively.

    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?

    With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only providing example queries in the 'Examples' section. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

    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 searches the Gemini API documentation for relevant pages, specifying it searches across titles, categories, and keywords. It distinguishes from the sibling tool fetch_gemini_doc by indicating this tool finds pages while the sibling gets full content, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    The description explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use this tool first to find relevant documentation pages, then use fetch_gemini_doc to get the full content.' This gives clear when-to-use instructions and names the alternative tool, helping the agent understand the workflow.

    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 valuable context beyond what annotations provide, including details about what content gets extracted (title, sections, code examples), output format options, and common usage paths. While annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description provides operational context that helps agents understand the tool's behavior in practice.

    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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections for arguments, returns, common paths, and usage guidance. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with zero waste, making it efficient for both quick scanning and detailed reference.

    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?

    Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description provides comprehensive context including detailed return structure, common usage examples, and sibling tool guidance. The annotations cover safety aspects, and the description fills in operational details, making this complete for agent understanding.

    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?

    With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value by providing a detailed return structure for JSON format and listing common path examples. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions and helps users understand what to expect from the tool's output.

    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 with specific verbs ('fetch and parse') and resource ('Gemini API documentation page'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool search_gemini_docs. It explicitly mentions extracting content including title, sections, and code examples, providing a comprehensive overview of what the tool does.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, stating 'Use search_gemini_docs first to find the correct path if you're unsure.' It also lists common paths with examples, helping users understand appropriate contexts for usage and when to choose the sibling tool.

    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

gemini-docs-skills MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

gemini-docs-skills 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/LeomaiaJr/gemini-docs-skills'

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