Skip to main content
Glama
Nettention

ProudNet Document MCP

Official
by Nettention
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_proudnet_page retrieves content from a specific page, list_proudnet_sections lists main sections, and search_proudnet_docs searches for topics. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool without confusion.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., get_proudnet_page, list_proudnet_sections, search_proudnet_docs). The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set, with no deviations in style.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 3 tools, the count is reasonable for a documentation server, covering key operations like retrieving, listing, and searching. It is slightly minimal but well-scoped, as each tool serves a distinct and necessary function without feeling thin.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers essential documentation interactions: getting specific content, listing sections, and searching. Minor gaps might include operations like updating or managing documentation, but for a read-only documentation domain, the coverage is sufficient for agent workflows.

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

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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

  • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] content,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'content' entails (e.g., HTML, markdown). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

    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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

    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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'content' is returned (e.g., format, structure) or address potential behavioral aspects like errors or limitations. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, this leaves the AI agent with insufficient context to use it reliably.

    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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is for a 'specific' page, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

    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 ('Get') and resource ('content from a specific ProudNet documentation page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_proudnet_sections' or 'search_proudnet_docs' beyond implying it retrieves a single page rather than listing or searching.

    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 its siblings. It mentions retrieving a 'specific' page, which hints at usage when the exact path is known, but doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as using 'search_proudnet_docs' for unknown paths or 'list_proudnet_sections' for browsing.

    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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Search') without details on permissions, rate limits, search scope (e.g., full-text, titles only), result format, or pagination. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

    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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

    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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of pages, snippets), how results are ordered, or any limitations. For a search tool with no structured behavioral data, more context is needed.

    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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter documented as 'Search query for ProudNet documentation'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as query syntax or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('ProudNet documentation'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_proudnet_page' or 'list_proudnet_sections', which likely retrieve specific pages or list sections rather than searching content.

    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. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific contexts for searching versus retrieving pages or listing sections, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

    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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists sections but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, safe, or has any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

    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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

    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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding, though it suffices for basic functionality.

    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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this case is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant information.

    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 action ('List') and resource ('main sections of ProudNet documentation'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_proudnet_page' or 'search_proudnet_docs', which might handle similar content differently.

    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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_proudnet_page' or 'search_proudnet_docs'. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving usage ambiguous.

    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

proudnet-document-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

proudnet-document-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/Nettention/proudnet-document-mcp'

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