Skip to main content
Glama
Qencode-Corp

qencode-mcp

Official
by Qencode-Corp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

fetch_qencode_doc

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the full content of any Qencode documentation resource by URI, including recipes, best practices, storage guides, error codes, and schema digest. Use this to get complete details after searching for docs.

Instructions

Read the full content of a Qencode knowledge-base resource by URI.

Works for every URI returned by `search_qencode_docs` — recipes, best
practices, storage, gotchas, error codes, and the schema digest. This
is the tool-based counterpart to the MCP `resources/read` operation,
provided because some MCP clients (notably Claude Desktop) don't expose
`resources/read` to the model directly.

Args:
    uri: a `qencode://...` URI from a `search_qencode_docs` hit.
        Examples:
          - qencode://recipe/hls_abr
          - qencode://docs/best-practices
          - qencode://docs/storage
          - qencode://docs/error-codes
          - qencode://schema/digest

Returns:
    A dict with `uri`, `mime_type`, and `content` (the full markdown or
    JSON, depending on the doc). On unknown URI, returns
    `{"error": "...", "available_uris": [...]}` listing the URIs you can
    try instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uriYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uriNo
errorNo
titleNo
contentNo
mime_typeNo
available_urisNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the exact return structure (uri, mime_type, content) and, notably, the error behavior on unknown URIs (returns error dict with available_uris). This is meaningful disclosure of failure semantics that the annotations do not provide.

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?

Well-structured with a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by scope, Args with examples, and Returns with error behavior. It runs a bit long, but every section earns its place — the URI examples and error-handling detail are high-value for a reader. Slightly verbose but justified.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter read tool: purpose, scope, usage routing, parameter semantics with examples, return format, and error behavior are all covered. Output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% — the schema declares only a bare string named 'uri' with no description. The description fully compensates by explaining the value is a qencode:// URI from search_qencode_docs and supplying five concrete examples across recipe, docs, and schema namespaces. For a single parameter this is complete, actionable 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Qencode knowledge-base resource by URI'), and explicitly ties its scope to URIs returned by search_qencode_docs, distinguishing it from the transcode/storage siblings. It even positions itself as the tool-based counterpart to resources/read, which clarifies its role versus other read mechanisms.

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 gives clear context on when to use it: with any URI produced by search_qencode_docs, and explains it exists because some clients don't expose resources/read. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative exclusions beyond the implicit contrast with search (which produces, not reads), so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools